Mail-in voting delays spark fraud allegations from Feijóo
Feijóo urges postal workers to deliver ballots despite management, as Correos collapse fuels fraud suspicions in Spain.
English · Original discussion in Spanish · Published
Feijóo asks postal workers to deliver mail-in votes despite their bosses
A former head of Correos asking postal workers to bypass their own supervisors. This paradox summarizes the mess surrounding mail-in voting ahead of general elections called for mid-July. Feijóo, who led the state-owned company between 2000 and 2003, urged workers to distribute votes "regardless of their bosses." The phrase has spread across social media and news outlets, with critics reading it as an invitation to conflict just when the process needs to be beyond reproach.
His tenure at Correos is not a minor detail. Those now demanding transparency from the state firm recall he ran it years ago, a point raised by various quarters. With suspicion entrenched, every gesture is interpreted through a political lens.
The mail-in voting backlog, in numbers
Figures suggest a genuine bottleneck. In 2019, around 900,000 votes were cast by mail, according to one thread message; this election's application volume has exceeded expectations. One user describes queues of twenty people at a post office, with processing taking about 15 minutes per person amid summer heat.
The strain is uneven. According to the thread, the highest percentages are concentrated in Madrid, Tarragona, Balearic Islands, Seville, Málaga, and Murcia. Some see a clue here, not because the data is conclusive, but because these are strongholds where the PSOE has most to lose.
Staffing levels are the other issue. It is claimed that only one-third of the minimum necessary staff has been assigned to process mail-in votes, explaining queues and delays. The timing looms large: elections during July holidays, with many voters away from home.
Who guards the vote and who moves the data
Counting relies on Indra, a fact often highlighted to rule out classic tampering: manipulating physical counts is difficult. Attention shifts to data transmission, historically the weak link.
A notable detail emerged. A user claims that sending turnout data and results from polling stations will not be handled by Correos staff this time, as usual in general elections, but by another company. The lack of agreement between the state firm and its leadership—whose appointment critics link to the government—has fueled various interpretations.
From Feijóo’s request to the Capitol assault
The harshest comparison came from the left. Pablo Echenique linked Feijóo’s request to the US Capitol assault, arguing Trump started similarly before inciting a mob against the legislature. It is a grave accusation, formulated as such, but accurately gauges the tension.
Conversely, others argue questioning Correos’ neutrality is legitimate given its government-aligned leadership, and focusing on mail-in voting demands guarantees rather than attacking democracy. Two mental frameworks unlikely to meet.
CCOO, “State Secret,” and unproven claims
Amid the noise, mention of union CCOO appeared: the initial post notes criticism comes from CCOO, not PP or VOX. Another user asks what peine to the union. Alongside this circulates the unconfirmed claim that mail-in voting details have been declared a "state secret." No public documentation supports this, warranting the same skepticism applied to other rumors.
The fraud thesis: what holds and what doesn’t
Here we must separate fact from fiction. One view holds fraud is impossible without controlling Correos and Indra, implying only the governing party could do so. Another goes further, claiming outcomes are pre-decided by a shadowy group allocating turns. This hypothesis lacks evidence and is presented as such.
Proposals include forcing a separate recount of mail-in votes, similar to overseas voting, for statistical analysis to confirm or deny fraud. Proponents argue no transparent actor should refuse.
A recurring warning: those lacking control over media and institutions cannot easily commit fraud. This argument suggests suspicion will always target the winner.
An ending nobody signs
The Central Electoral Commission remains, with some urging it to act ex officio. Feijóo says he will investigate if problems arise. And the uncomfortable question persists: if mail-in voting cannot be independently verified, what use is debating who controls it?
A former head of Correos asking postal workers to bypass their own supervisors. This paradox summarizes the mess surrounding mail-in voting ahead of general elections called for mid-July. Feijóo, who led the state-owned company between 2000 and 2003, urged workers to distribute votes "regardless of their bosses." The phrase has spread across social media and news outlets, with critics reading it as an invitation to conflict just when the process needs to be beyond reproach.
His tenure at Correos is not a minor detail. Those now demanding transparency from the state firm recall he ran it years ago, a point raised by various quarters. With suspicion entrenched, every gesture is interpreted through a political lens.
The mail-in voting backlog, in numbers
Figures suggest a genuine bottleneck. In 2019, around 900,000 votes were cast by mail, according to one thread message; this election's application volume has exceeded expectations. One user describes queues of twenty people at a post office, with processing taking about 15 minutes per person amid summer heat.
The strain is uneven. According to the thread, the highest percentages are concentrated in Madrid, Tarragona, Balearic Islands, Seville, Málaga, and Murcia. Some see a clue here, not because the data is conclusive, but because these are strongholds where the PSOE has most to lose.
Staffing levels are the other issue. It is claimed that only one-third of the minimum necessary staff has been assigned to process mail-in votes, explaining queues and delays. The timing looms large: elections during July holidays, with many voters away from home.
Who guards the vote and who moves the data
Counting relies on Indra, a fact often highlighted to rule out classic tampering: manipulating physical counts is difficult. Attention shifts to data transmission, historically the weak link.
A notable detail emerged. A user claims that sending turnout data and results from polling stations will not be handled by Correos staff this time, as usual in general elections, but by another company. The lack of agreement between the state firm and its leadership—whose appointment critics link to the government—has fueled various interpretations.
From Feijóo’s request to the Capitol assault
The harshest comparison came from the left. Pablo Echenique linked Feijóo’s request to the US Capitol assault, arguing Trump started similarly before inciting a mob against the legislature. It is a grave accusation, formulated as such, but accurately gauges the tension.
Conversely, others argue questioning Correos’ neutrality is legitimate given its government-aligned leadership, and focusing on mail-in voting demands guarantees rather than attacking democracy. Two mental frameworks unlikely to meet.
CCOO, “State Secret,” and unproven claims
Amid the noise, mention of union CCOO appeared: the initial post notes criticism comes from CCOO, not PP or VOX. Another user asks what peine to the union. Alongside this circulates the unconfirmed claim that mail-in voting details have been declared a "state secret." No public documentation supports this, warranting the same skepticism applied to other rumors.
The fraud thesis: what holds and what doesn’t
Here we must separate fact from fiction. One view holds fraud is impossible without controlling Correos and Indra, implying only the governing party could do so. Another goes further, claiming outcomes are pre-decided by a shadowy group allocating turns. This hypothesis lacks evidence and is presented as such.
Proposals include forcing a separate recount of mail-in votes, similar to overseas voting, for statistical analysis to confirm or deny fraud. Proponents argue no transparent actor should refuse.
A recurring warning: those lacking control over media and institutions cannot easily commit fraud. This argument suggests suspicion will always target the winner.
An ending nobody signs
The Central Electoral Commission remains, with some urging it to act ex officio. Feijóo says he will investigate if problems arise. And the uncomfortable question persists: if mail-in voting cannot be independently verified, what use is debating who controls it?
Also available in: Deutsch
Summary of a discussion on Burbuja.info - Foro de economía, actualidad y política., translated from Spanish and reviewed before publication. Read the full discussion (185 replies).
More summaries
-
Electoral storm in Andalusia, Spain: fraud claims and postal voting
Fraud allegations in Spain's 2026 Andalusian elections: anomalous postal voting, electoral roll tampering and the role of Indra and Correos. Could the vote be repeated?
-
23J: Scrutiny doubts and INDRA role in Spain's election
Election day closes with fraud allegations: boards allegedly skip manual counts for INDRA data, but no judicial proof supports the claims.
-
Postal voting under suspicion: the tug-of-war over abstention
An alleged postal-vote fraud victim denies his signature before a judge as debate grows over whether abstaining ultimately benefits the PSOE.
-
Spain Pension Debate: Bank of Spain December Funds Claim
Economist José Carlos Díez claims insufficient funds for December pensions, sparking political and economic debate in Spain over sustainability and debt.
-
Spain's Bar España hoax goes to trial: six defendants in the dock
Six defendants stand trial for spreading, for nearly 30 years, the hoax of a paedophile ring at the Bar España in Benicarló, Spain.
-
The destruction of the family: for and by power
An analysis of the different views on the destruction of the family: is it capitalism, socialism or the welfare state? Contrasting data and arguments.