Alvise Pérez needs 15,000 signatures amid postal delays claims

Alvise Pérez needs 15,000 signatures amid postal delays claims

How do you collect 15,000 signatures to run in European elections when the very postal service responsible for delivering them leaves them stranded at a facility? This question hangs over Alvise Pérez’s candidacy as an "agrupación de electores" (independent voter group). The deadline and signature requirements are identical for everyone, yet his circle describes an obstacle course: tens of thousands of shipments allegedly held up in Madrid, according to campaign officials, while their internal count already exceeds 135,000 validated signatures.

If confirmed, this figure would be unprecedented. The candidate himself has speculated that the final total could reach 250,000 signatures across Spain. For a first-time independent group, this volume represents a phenomenon: it is not a party with infrastructure, headquarters, or members, but a network of volunteers with tables outside metro stations and an anti-corruption message that has resonated with disillusioned voters.

Legal requirements for running in European elections

Independent voter groups wishing to compete in European elections must gather a specific number of support signatures, known as "avales," within a set timeframe. This requirement applies equally to all non-established parties, which is the first point of friction: the candidate's team insists they were required to submit 15,000 endorsements, a figure critics say is standard for any formation in their position.

The collection system has a peculiarity that explains much of the noise: signatures must be sent via certified mail to the relevant electoral board. If the postal service fails, the endorsement does not arrive. And if it does not arrive, it does not count. Hence, attention has focused on Correos, the state-owned company dependent on the government, and the suspicion—unproven—that shipments are being deliberately withheld.

Some see a familiar pattern here: postal voting and certified mail as systemic weak points. Proponents of this theory recall previous incidents where ballots failed to arrive or electoral documents went missing. Opponents counter that deadlines and requirements are identical for everyone, and if irregularities exist, the remedy is the courts, not rallies.

Correos, the link no one controls

The postal operator has become central to the narrative. According to accounts circulating among supporters, tens of thousands of certified letters are accumulating at the Madrid headquarters without being delivered to the audit site where endorsements are counted. The company has not confirmed this retention, and without official confirmation, the accusation remains unverified: it is a partisan claim, not an established fact.

What stands out is the method. Signature counting is done manually, one by one, with figures published as they are tallied. There is no notary, no public record, no independent verification of the process. This leaves the data in limbo: it could be a real mobilization phenomenon or a well-constructed victimhood operation. Both possibilities fit the same narrative, which is exactly what divides public opinion.

The paradox is that the candidate himself has urged trinc to abstain from postal voting on June 9. If the problem is the mail, the proposed solution is not to use it. Critics argue this request proves the discourse aims not to fix anything, but to fuel distrust in the system.

Two Spains regarding endorsements: activism vs skepticism

On one side are those who signed and see no problem. They describe tables outside metro stations with queues of people, overwhelmed volunteers, and social fatigue translating into signatures. For them, the phenomenon proves there is an orphan electorate no party has captured, and institutional resistance confirms they are bothersome.

On the other side are those who doubt. If the candidate has 500,000 trinc on social media, they argue, he should have no trouble gathering 15,000 endorsements. The uncomfortable question they pose is: Are these trinc real or inflated metrics? And if they are real, why beg for signatures on the street?

Between these extremes lies a current that buys neither narrative. It notes that the CIS (Spain's Center for Sociological Research) placed the candidate sixth even before his candidacy was officially registered, a datum that clashes with the image of a persecuted project. If the system disadvantages him, why do public polls favor him? The response from the other side is that the CIS seeks to fragment right-wing votes, not boost the candidate.

The calculation no one has broken down

The core issue is arithmetic. If 135,000 signatures have been collected and only 15,000 are needed, the margin is nine to one. With such a buffer, the retention of a few thousand shipments should not be fatal. The question, therefore, is not how many signatures exist, but how many arrive on time and how many are lost along the way.

This is where the story becomes opaque. There is no external audit, no public registry of shipments, no way to verify how many letters left and how many arrived. A complete breakdown, item by item, would reveal surprising differences, but no one has put documents on the table. Only tweets.

Meanwhile, the clock ticks. The deadline is fixed, and signatures that do not arrive cannot be recovered. The candidacy stakes its presence in the European elections on a post office.

---

In the end, the story has a familiar air: a candidate claiming the system blocks him, a public service that neither confirms nor denies, and a mass of voters deciding whom to believe. If the signatures arrive, the phenomenon is real. If they do not, blame already has a name. In either case, someone will come out saying they knew.