Leftist candidate worries Mexican elite

Wow Baez! A whopping 1.1 million marching in the streets of Mexico City, an astounding record, an incredible sight. A yellow torrent of civilians, raising their voices, supporting AMLO. No other can do that, not even the Pope. I'm hyped up, haha!

0 Replies

Fb,

Before I tune in to the million on the streets (what? listening...)
I have to ask quickly about the Guardian... I've just started subscribing online a few weeks ago. I am left of lib for a us/american and don't so much need to define myself in space to anyone else, as to get a grasp of what I am listening to. 'tis all complicated, as I have fleeting libertarian points of view. But never mind, just wondering about newspapers, and what I can plug into re my pov, and, the opposite. But, first of all, if you don't mind talking about it, your take on the Guardian.

I have a starter pov on the guardian, but I don't trust it, my wall of ignorance is too large. Not to pin you down, just in case you feel like expounding.

0 Replies

Subscribing online - you get the (paid for) printed version as pdf-data (I do) or just registered online?
(Most of the news content is free online, as well as comments, although a bit different to the printed version sometimes.)

In my opinion, the Guardian is left of the center, with a libertarian touch on some issues.

The Independent has a similar take.

0 Replies

The Guardian is a good newspaper, of the English newspapers I think it's the best one. (The Independent is too shrill/strident, The Telegraph is rabidly rightwing, and The Times is fine but has a dearth of foreign news and an abundance of crime news).

That said, the English newspaper landscape is, to my Dutch mind, maddeningly politicized, and none of the above are any way near neutral. The Guardian, for example, is a leftwing newspaper. Not fighting-ready leftie or anything - more like the 'house newspaper' of the Labour Party, with centrist New Labour types and leftie Old Labour figures debating each other. And even if its not as bad as with the Times and the Telegraph, like all English newspapers it doesnt exactly have an abundance of foreign news - even less of news from outside Europe. (Though to its credit, The Guardian is working on expanding that, as it is trying to consciously market itself as an alternative news source in the US as well.)

I wouldnt want to rely on it as my primary news source, good to mix it with alternate takes, but it has plenty of good stuff, especially re UK and European politics.

0 Replies

fbaezer -- you're much closer to this story than I am. Does any source independent of Obrador's campaign find the election rigged enough to turn an honest Obrador win into a dishonest Obrador loss?

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Does any source independent of Obrador's campaign find the election rigged enough to turn an honest Obrador win into a dishonest Obrador loss?

err... Greg Palast, journalist for The Guardian?

0 Replies

fbaezer wrote:

Thomas wrote:
Does any source independent of Obrador's campaign find the election rigged enough to turn an honest Obrador win into a dishonest Obrador loss?

err... Greg Palast, journalist for The Guardian?

Well, I guess that would be one. Sorry, I dropped into this thread on the last page and didn't read what came before.

0 Replies

Actually, I doubt you'll find many more.

And it REALLY bothers me to read this kind of one sided material, with no investigation whatsoever.

Mexico has many flaws. The electoral system isn't one of them. It's fraud-proof. Damn expensive, but fraud-proof. Only comparable to Germany's, and I'm not kidding.

To vote you need a voting card. It has your picture and several locks.
You can vote only in your prescinct.
On the prescinct there are several copies of the voters list. All with the photograph of the voter.
EVERY PARTY HAS THE COMPLETE LIST OF ALL 74 MILLION VOTERS IN THEIR RESPECTIVE PRESCINCTS. All data and picture included.
There is no freaking way people can "dissappear" from lists.
If you change your residence you must notify IFE. If you don't you appear as a voter in the place you used to live in (that's my case); if you do, the former card is automatically unvalid, a new card is issued and you vote near your place of residence (my wife's case).
Unpaid citizens, chosen at random (a public draw is made, and two elements appear: a letter and a month), people whose last name start with that letter and were born on that month are the prescinct's officials, after a brief course. Every party and candidate has a reppresentative on the prescinct.
Your voting card is punched and your thumb is smeared with indelible ink, so no one can vote twice.
Voting count on every prescinct is public (that is why there are videos).
Every prescinct sends its data to the electoral district (whose officials are also chosen at random, and with reppresentatives of the parties), which in turn sends it to IFE for the PREP (Preliminary Results Program), and also the ballot boxes, which are guarded by the Army.
The official recount is made 3 days after the election (always, on every election). The act of each prescinct is reviewed with the presence of all party reppresentatives. If there is any doubt, the ballot box is opened and votes are recounted publicly.
The data is sent to IFE, which publishes it.

The media have the obligation to cover candidates in a "proportionate" way. Every week IFE issues a follow-though of how much time, and with what slant, have the different media followed the campaigns. The following is closer with TV and radio.
The President, governors and majors are forbidden to do campaigning.
It is forbidden to promote social programs during the campaigns.

The IFE is autonomous. Not part of the government.
The counselors of IFE are nonpartisan, and have been approved by at least two thirds of the members of Congress.

The parties are publicly funded, in proportion to their votes in the former elections.
If they misuse their funds or have inconsistencies on their audited financial reports, they are heavily fined.
They must be internally democratic, and IFE can hear complains about it, and make them change their statutes (it happened with the Greens).
Private funding is heavily limited by law.

All inconsistencies and complaints in the election are raised to a specialized tribunal, the TEPJF (Electoral Tribunal of the Judicial Power of the Federation). The tribunal analyses them, decides (it may dismiss the votes of a prescinct if it finds irregularities) and makes the final count.
The TEPJF declares officially the winner.
--------------

AMLO has the right to send all the inconsistencies and complaints to the TEPJF. I'd do that if I were in his place.
But the fraud talk is pure demagogery.
All the locks (and I've only written about the most important ones) are the result of a long struggle against rigged elections (a struggle very close to my biography, I must add), and have crystalyzed in citizen institutions that, until today, had the approval of pratically the totality of the Mexican citizens.
AMLO is sending torpedoes on those institutions, relying on the understandable frustration of his followers.

----------

Finally, another things pisses me off.
To see some foreign press treating Mexico's electoral system as if it were Third World's. It is not.
I find that ignorant and patronizing.

0 Replies

Fbaezer, I do comply with you. Our electoral system is perfectly organized and in theory should work perfectly well. In theory. As many things in this country, the system can be polluted and malformed.

The voting procedure you describe is correct, but I digress in a couple of relatively irrelevant things. The first, the card is not punched anymore when you vote, though it should. The second, not all parties had representatives in all the prescints. Among others, this was PRD's problem, but it was their fault and none others. Probably this is where the issue spawns from, since every representant - YES! - has to approve the vote counting.

Now, I'm not 100% sure about this, but when the act is filled it is sent to the district, and that information is collected by the IFE electronically and counted. There is when the supposed algorithm created by Hildebrando - Calderon's brother in law (?) company - would act, right? It does sound kind of funky, since all the parties do have the number of votes received per act. I guess this numbers dont match, and thats why AMLO is yelling "fraud", other than that I wouldnt understand.

Today I read "El Universal"'s columnist, Francisco Cárdenas Cruz, and dang... he talks about several things. Calderón, after the post PREP recount said that he allowed the "vote by vote" claim of AMLO, even dared him to, but now he refuses it, as well as his party. Now, did Ugalde recognized Calerón as the winner of the election? Because he can't do that, the Electoral Tribunal is the one that, after reviewing the procedure, claims the winner, not the IFE. Did Fox help Calderón by placing social programs at his service? I wouldn't doubt it. How about the media after the Radio and Television Law? There's a clear bias, days after the last edition of "El Privilegio de Mandar" (a parody of the electoral candidates), Joaquín López Dóriga (anchorman of Televisa) was going to receive AMLO - he said so in his radio program in the morning, but suddenly forgot about it. And that final speech in the parody was definitely NOT scripted humor.

Did the PAN received, before the other parties, a copy of the voters listings? How about those "missing votes", duplicated acts, people that couldn't vote in special prescints for foreigners, and the fact that there where less ballots for president than for house representants? Of course, I dont believe all that AMLO says. He has gotten quite hysterical, attacking even a juice and bread brands, but I do see that there has been a couple of ODD things going on. In the end, the TRIFE will decide...

Crap, after re-reading this post, I notice that is full of gramatical errors. Embarrassed

0 Replies

el_pohl wrote:

Fbaezer, I do comply with you. Our electoral system is perfectly organized and in theory should work perfectly well. In theory. As many things in this country, the system can be polluted and malformed.

I suppose that is true of every country's electoral system. No country has in practice reached the Platonic ideal that its election laws describe. But Platonic ideals aren't the relevant benchmark in this case. The relevant benchmark is whether the imperfections are great enough to turn an Obrador win into an Obrador loss. And as f_baezer says, it seems to me that when independent journalists looked at the matter and tried to quantify objectively how much the outcome has been changed, they found that it hasn't changed enough to affect who the winner is.

And have you noticed that on close reading of the Guardian, even Greg Palast doesn't say this? He says there have been some irregularities (which I suppose is true), but he communicates everything beyond that through innuendo and rhetorical questions. He doesn't state explicitly that the election has been rigged systematically and badly enough to change the winner.

0 Replies

el_pohl wrote:

Fbaezer, I do comply with you. Our electoral system is perfectly organized and in theory should work perfectly well. In theory. As many things in this country, the system can be polluted and malformed.

It worked, in practice, perfectly well in 1994, 1997, 2000 and 2003. Why not in 2006?

el_pohl wrote:

Now, I'm not 100% sure about this, but when the act is filled it is sent to the district, and that information is collected by the IFE electronically and counted. There is when the supposed algorithm created by Hildebrando - Calderon's brother in law (?) company - would act, right? It does sound kind of funky, since all the parties do have the number of votes received per act. I guess this numbers dont match, and thats why AMLO is yelling "fraud", other than that I wouldnt understand.

The numbers match, of course. The algorithm pretext was so stupid, AMLO has just dumped it.

On an interview today in Radio UNAM, he says there was no "cibernetic" fraud (that is, the PREP is clean), but "old style" fraud at the polling booths.

el_pohl wrote:

Today I read "El Universal"'s columnist, Francisco Cárdenas Cruz, and dang... he talks about several things. Calderón, after the post PREP recount said that he allowed the "vote by vote" claim of AMLO, even dared him to, but now he refuses it, as well as his party.

Calderón actually said "acta por acta". Which was done.
There's a lot of discussion going on about if it's better for Calderón to say "go on, vote by vote".

BTW. have you read on the same "El Universal" that Woldenberg said that the vote by vote count has already been made? And...
"José Woldenberg dijo que un nuevo conteo de votos significa que "el partido que demanda eso desconoce las firmas de sus representantes en todas las casillas".
Woldenberg says that AMLO's request means that AMLO does not recognize the signatures of all of his prescinct reppresentatives.

Now, if Woldenberg isn't an authorized moral voice in Mexican politics, I don't know who is.

el_pohl wrote:

Now, did Ugalde recognized Calerón as the winner of the election? Because he can't do that, the Electoral Tribunal is the one that, after reviewing the procedure, claims the winner, not the IFE.

He didn't. He said: "the candidate with the most votes". Ugalde is extremely cautious about formalisms.

el_pohl wrote:

Did Fox help Calderón by placing social programs at his service? I wouldn't doubt it.

Actually López Obrador won 10 out the 15 poorest municipalities; 3 went for Madrazo and 2 for Calderón.
And, according to the exit polls, Madrazo -yes, freaking Madrazo- won among people who earn 1,300 pesos a month or less. López Obrador won handily among people who earn between 1,300 and 3,900 pesos a month. Calderón won tightly among people who earn between 3,900 and 9,000 pesos a month, handily in those who earn between 9,000 and 13,000 and had way over 50% in those who earn over 13,000 a month.
The data tells it easily: the beneficiaries of the "Oportunidades" program voted freely, for López Obrador AND Madrazo.

0 Replies

el_pohl wrote:

How about the media after the Radio and Television Law? There's a clear bias, days after the last edition of "El Privilegio de Mandar" (a parody of the electoral candidates), Joaquín López Dóriga (anchorman of Televisa) was going to receive AMLO - he said so in his radio program in the morning, but suddenly forgot about it. And that final speech in the parody was definitely NOT scripted humor.

In a poll about "El Privilegio de Mandar", it was found that people considered that their favorite politicians were described with exageration, while the others were described "fairly".
Certainly, the final speech of "El Privilegio...", AFTER the elections, was neither funny nor impartial. It was Televisa's way of saying: "We are fed up with you, AMLO".
López-Doriga did receive López Obrador on TV (part of the exchange is on the NYT article). AMLO said: "and you're going to invite me next week!". López-Dóriga said nothing.

el_pohl wrote:

Did the PAN received, before the other parties, a copy of the voters listings?

Not that I know of. And I serously doubt it.

el_pohl wrote:

How about those "missing votes", duplicated acts, people that couldn't vote in special prescints for foreigners, and the fact that there where less ballots for president than for house representants? Of course, I dont believe all that AMLO says. He has gotten quite hysterical, attacking even a juice and bread brands, but I do see that there has been a couple of ODD things going on. In the end, the TRIFE will decide...

pohl, come on, the "missing votes"? Are they still talking about the 2.5 million votes issue we've solved pages ago?
"Special prescincts for foreigners?". Mexicans abroad (not foreigners) do not vote in prescincts. They vote by registered mail.
Special prescincts are for citizens outside their district. They are a limited number and there are always huge queues, and many don't get ballots.
The number is limited because the parties didn't want "too many" voters to vote in prescincts with no "nominal list of electors".
Finally, where were there less ballots for President than for house representatives? AMLO has yet to name a prescinct.

0 Replies

fbaezer wrote:

The numbers match, of course. The algorithm pretext was so stupid, AMLO has just dumped it.

Dang, I hate it when this man just keeps dumping his theories. It makes me look bad. Embarrassed

fbaezer wrote:

On an interview today in Radio UNAM, he says there was no "cibernetic" fraud (that is, the PREP is clean), but "old style" fraud at the polling booths.

Old style? That would be the reason for the "vote for vote" claim. Well, you could justify that one by saying its an honest mistake. If it was cibernetic (dazzling word) that would just be evil.

fbaezer wrote:

There's a lot of discussion going on about if it's better for Calderón to say "go on, vote by vote".

Of course it would be better, don't you think so? If each vote is counted - BTW, won't that take a loooong time? - and he does win, he will multiply his strength and receive more support. If it doesn't happen, it will remain questionable, even for the stupidest reasons.

fbaezer wrote:

BTW. have you read on the same "El Universal" that Woldenberg said that the vote by vote count has already been made? And...
"José Woldenberg dijo que un nuevo conteo de votos significa que "el partido que demanda eso desconoce las firmas de sus representantes en todas las casillas".
Woldenberg says that AMLO's request means that AMLO does not recognize the signatures of all of his prescinct reppresentatives.

Yes, I did read that, and I agree. But again, not all prescints where covered by the "Redes Ciudadanas" of the PRD, and even if it were... AMLO already said that some representants could have been bought.

fbaezer wrote:

He didn't. He said: "the candidate with the most votes". Ugalde is extremely cautious about formalisms.

Thanks for clearing that, but yet... he forgot to tell the citizens about the "missing acts" that had inconsistencies.

fbaezer wrote:

The data tells it easily: the beneficiaries of the "Oportunidades" program voted freely, for López Obrador AND Madrazo.

Wow, that is some interesting statistics!!! Surprising about Madrazo...

0 Replies

fbaezer wrote:

Pohl, come on, the "missing votes"? Are they still talking about the 2.5 million votes issue we've solved pages ago?
"Special prescincts for foreigners?".

I really dont think that AMLO is talking about those 2.5M votes anymore. That would be ridiculous. I heard something about 1.5 million votes that exist in the acts, but not in the final number given to him of 14 million or so votes that he received.

fbaezer wrote:

Mexicans abroad (not foreigners) do not vote in prescincts. They vote by registered mail.
Special prescincts are for citizens outside their district. They are a limited number and there are always huge queues, and many don't get ballots.
The number is limited because the parties didn't want "too many" voters to vote in prescincts with no "nominal list of electors".

Yeah, I meant the citizens outside. Like tourists. Quite a small number of those voting outside of Mexico dont you think? I wonder how many in L.A. voted.

fbaezer wrote:

Finally, where were there less ballots for President than for house representatives? AMLO has yet to name a prescinct.

I dont know where were those less ballots, but that fact could clearly be identified even in the PREP. The sum of all the acts for House Reps was less than the Presidential one.

Probably most of what AMLO claims is bogus. I know, I agree. But some of it has to be true, he isn't that dumb, is he? What evidence exactly did he took to the TRIFE? I hope it wasnt that "urna embarazada" video...

0 Replies

Oh yes, those videos, newspaper clips, a claim that people were "alienated" and other mixed stuff.
Perhaps there's some meat somewhere else. The judges will decide.

And pohl, if 1.5 million votes were missing somehow, don't you think THAT, and not bogus videos, clips and demands against Dr. Simi would be the nucleus, the casus belli, as lawyers love to say?

0 Replies

fbaezer wrote:

according to the exit polls, Madrazo -yes, freaking Madrazo- won among people who earn 1,300 pesos a month or less. López Obrador won handily among people who earn between 1,300 and 3,900 pesos a month. Calderón won tightly among people who earn between 3,900 and 9,000 pesos a month, handily in those who earn between 9,000 and 13,000 and had way over 50% in those who earn over 13,000 a month.

Thats interesting. The rich for Calderon, the middle classes to Calderon by a thread, the poor for Obrador - so far so predictable.

But the poorest to Madrazo? What's the background to that, any theories or explanations?

Random thought: poor pensioners, perhaps, old people voting for the old party?

0 Replies

No nimh, it's a matter of scholarity.

The "old" voted for López Obrador by a 13% margin. He became popular by giving a small pension to everyone over 70 in Mexico City.
The young 18-24 voted for Calderón by a 2% margin., with Mercado almost catching up with Madrazo.
The 25-39 year olds voted for Calderón by a 5% margin.
The 40-59's voted for AMLO by a 1% margin.

The 25-39 year olds make 41% of the electorate. We're a young nation.

People with "no schooling" (did not finish grade school: 7% of the voters) voted roughly in thirds, with an edge for Madrazo. The same edge he has among voters who earn less than a minimum wage.
The PRI falls as schooling grows, and plummets with university graduates.
AMLO has a lead amongst people with primary, secondary and technical schooling. According to one source, he barely beats Calderón in people with the equivalent of High School and Jr. College. According to another, it's the other way around. A majority of people with university studies voted for Calderón (bigger in the case of the pollster who considers AMLO won among people with High School), so I guess one pollster put Jr.College graduates alongside High School graduates and the other put them alongside college graduates.

Back to the question: this poor PRI voters are often rural, often illiterate, and for ages knew nothing but PRI, when PRI was everything in Mexican politics. They relate PRI to "government help" and when asked, they say they vote PRI "because I always do".
The news is that Madrazo won among the poorest only by 1% over AMLO and 3% over Calderón. It's within the exit-polls' margin of error.

0 Replies

Interesting, thanks.

0 Replies

(Reading with interest and feeling privileged to be party to such world-class analysis...)

0 Replies

You betchya, Soz - it occurred to me a while ago that those following this thread well might have a better understanding of the vents than do most Mexicans. Thanks and kudos indeed are due this discussion's informed and astute contributors.

0 Replies

Leftist candidate worries Mexican elite

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know