Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Mexico: Calderón Hasn't Won

By Joshua Holland, AlterNet. Posted July 10, 2006.


Despite what you've been hearing in the mainstream media, nobody has won Mexico's presidential election yet.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

Also in Top Stories

Sleeping Around Craigslist
Anna Reed, Lily Penza, East Bay Express

Bush's Secret Army of Snoops and Snitches
Matthew Rothschild, The Progressive

Michael Pollan on What's Wrong with Environmentalism
Kate Cheney Davidson, Yale Environment 360

A Peak Oil Prophet Imagines Life in America After Wal-Mart
Michelle Nijhuis, Grist.org

Sci-Fi Heroes Take on the System
Roya Rastegar, ColorLines

Billionaires Are Gouging Your Grandparents
Brave New Films, Brave New Films

Online Activists Keep the Pressure on Obama
Ari Melber, TheNation.com

More stories by Joshua Holland

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

It's already become fashionable to compare Mexico's 2006 vote with the impasse that followed Florida's contested race in 2000. There are many differences, but one stands out: there's no Al Gore in this race. Liberal Andrés Manuel López Obrador, of the Democratic Revolutionary Party (PRD), is not going down without a fight. Millions of frustrated Mexicans who had pinned their hopes on "AMLO" will have his back.

The media have been dutiful stenographers for the Calderón campaign and reported that López Obrador's call for massive (but peaceful) protests demanding a fair count is somehow bad for Mexican democracy. Millions of frustrated Americans, having seen spineless capitulation from Gore in 2000 and John Kerry in 2004 would no doubt disagree.

Crucial to the mainstream narrative is that conservative candidate Felipe Calderón has won the election -- that the National Action Party (PAN) candidate took it in a squeaker. Yes, there are reports of "irregularities," we're told, but the vote was clean and López Obrador's protests only prove that he's a sore loser who simply won't accept the outcome of a close loss. (Sound familiar?)

That narrative is wrong for one simple reason: nobody has won Mexico's presidential election. Regardless of what the New York Times or Mexico's Federal Electoral Institute (IFE) claim, the results aren't in. Under Mexican law, only the Federal Electoral Tribunal, know by its Spanish acronym TRIFE, can say who will serve as Mexico's next president.

As Robert Parsons, an expert on elections at American University, points out, Mexico's electoral institutions -- considered among the best in the world -- have gotten far ahead of its political culture. Most Mexicans expect attempts to game the system after almost a century of hijacked votes. Mexico's complex election laws and multilayered electoral institutions are designed not only to prevent fraud, but to detect and reverse it.

At the end of that road is the TRIFE. The TRIFE's seven magistrates -- nominated by the Supreme Court and confirmed by a two-thirds majority in the Senate -- are respected legal scholars who serve long terms and are relatively insulated from outside pressure. Lorenzo Meyer, a prominent historian who supports López Obrador, told the Associated Press: "The magistrates are serious people. They come from academic and legal backgrounds. I can't imagine them distorting their decision because of pressure from a party."

López Obrador's PRD, which is somewhat of an "outsider" party, has accused the vaunted IFE of "bias" in its decisions, but Manuel Camacho, a top campaign aide to AMLO, told the AP that "the PRD has confidence in the TRIFE."

López Obrador and his supporters claim there were irregularities at 40,000 of the country's 130,000 polling places. Calderón got a razor-thin margin in last Wednesday's official tally of the actas -- the summary sheets prepared at each polling place (the actual ballots were only counted when there was a discrepancy with the actas) -- of less than 250,000 votes out of over 41 million votes cast. López Obrador has called for a complete ballot-by-ballot recount.

This week, the PRD will submit official complaints to the TRIFE, which has the authority to give AMLO his recount, overturn the results in any of Mexico's 30 states and even annul the whole enchilada nationwide and order a new vote (an unlikely scenario). The magistrates will evaluate and rule on each claim before making a final decision on a winner. The process is expected to drag on for weeks; the TRIFE has until August 31 to complete its deliberations and isn't required to make a final judgment until the first week of September.

Although the TRIFE magistrates come from a judiciary dominated by the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) that controlled Mexican government for generations, they've made decisions in the past that have gone against both PRI and PAN. The tribunal threw out PRI's victory in the 2000 Tabasco state governor's race because of official interference and ordered a new vote. David Koop of the AP notes that the TRIFE removed a state electoral board that was stacked with PRI members in Yucatan in 2000; in 2003 it killed a PRI victory in Colima state because the outgoing governor had stuck his nose in the race; that year it also upheld a $91 million fine against the PRI for misuse of public funds in 2000; in 2004 it fined PAN $34 million for financial shenanigans in the same race, and last year the tribunal ordered PAN to repeat a primary election in the state of Mexico because it had violated party rules.


Digg!

Joshua Holland is an AlterNet staff writer.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Already, though, it looks like a win for their system
Posted by: HeroesAll on Jul 10, 2006 2:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
All the details you're describing point to a fairly healthy and robust electoral system. And the degree of engagement within the people is encouraging too. Perhaps they've had enough after a century of massive fraud.

I liked the part about the physicist, being as I'm a geek and all. Interesting, although that would only have picked up certain types of electronic fraud: it wouldn't have picked up gaming only certain precincts, for example, or (probably) gaming within electronic voting machines themselves.

This is turning out to be a damn interesting story. I'm glad that TRIFE is honest. I just can't wait for the next installment...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

SLOG
Posted by: rsaxto on Jul 10, 2006 4:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If TRIFE is really honest and accurate in their examination of actual votes and actual allegations of fraud, then it looks like AMLO the Obrador will win this long hard slog toward accurate vote counting.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Another great report from you!
Posted by: jules_siegel on Jul 10, 2006 4:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am really impressed. You are the only journalist who is covering this accurately and comprehensively. People over at DailyKos are talking about how thrilling the protests are, and how Americans could learn from that. They would mean absolutely nothing if the paper ballots were not there to verify the result. That's what people in the United States should really be watching.

As far as the irregularities, what we've been shown so far seems to be consistent with what you would expect in counting 41.5 million votes. Throwing ballots in the garbage is not exactly the most sophisticated method of election fraud. It sounds too slovenly to have been part of any coordinated process. Tampering with the actas also would seem to be an unlikely method for a massive fraud. It's too easy to detect.

But changing the computer calculations -- now that is definitely possible. It is also detectable by at least two methods. The most starightforward is checking the data against the tally sheets and/or ballots, as necessary. The second is to examine the numbers themselves without reference to their significance.

López Obrador's alleged that in many basic precincts that were contiguous, the numbers one and two appear at the same frequency in the tallies, it is argued. "He asserted that there were too many coincidences to think that people would organize themselves to vote so mathematically," the newspaper reports

He's wrong about that. Very large collected numbers have internal patterns that resemble manipulation, but are actually examples of randomness.

I know that this seems improbable, but there is a science of numerical forensics that deals with repetitive patterns in collected numbers. If they don't have these patterns, then suspicion is raised that the figures have been tampered with, because the people who did it will tend to cover their tracks by making the results look random.

It's really a fascinating area of study, but the results are often counter-intutive. Look into "Following Benford's Law, or Looking Out for No. 1," by Malcolm W. Browne, The New York Times, Tuesday, August 4, 1998. Be sure to scan down to the graph, which shows how Benford's law predicts a decreasing frequency of first digits, from 1 through 9. López Obrador appears to be talking about general frequency, not just first digit frequency, but that may not be a random distribution either.

That is the kind of analysis that will take place now. It's important to remember, however, that a negative finding will not be definitive, because a sophisticated algorithm would include a way of maintaining the expected numerical distribution patterns, if at all possible. Whether or not that would be possible remains to be seen. So we come back to the paper trail as the only method of verification. And that's the real lesson here.

The integrity of the Mexican electoral system is at stake. More than a hundred thousand Mexicans from all levels of society and all political persuasions collected and counted those votes. It seems unlikely that they would have been unaware of fraud in the materials they prepared and handled, given the inherent verifications built in to the structure. From what we now know about voter fraud in the United States, it is possible that the electronic computation was secretly manipulated. If so, we must ask if Mexicans did this. If they didn't, who did?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Another great report from you! Posted by: jules_siegel
» RE: Another great report from you! Posted by: pelle_in_goal
» RE: Another great report from you! Posted by: jules_siegel
» RE: Another great report from you! Posted by: jules_siegel
Capitulation in 2000
Posted by: the islander on Jul 10, 2006 5:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thank you for saying that. I have always felt betrayed by Al Gore. His view was that the election was only about him. The election wasn't really about him it was about us.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Where was Jorge López in 2000 and 2004?
Posted by: antiapathy on Jul 10, 2006 6:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think there might have been some statistical irregularities on this side of the border as well...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Yeah, and Bush didn't win in 2000 OR 2004, EITHER.
Posted by: xbj on Jul 10, 2006 7:01 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sorry to be "Debbie Downer" here, but so what?

I don't see the Mexican people flooding the streets the way they had no problem whatsoever doing here.

I think in their minds they're ALREADY Amerikans. Right down to accepting Diebold and ES&S choosing their Presidente.

Thank the Pope they've got lots of cannon fodder to feed to Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Living in Monterrey
Posted by: Juven on Jul 10, 2006 8:01 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Monterrey is a largely middle class city with a heavy industrial base and here you will not hear hardly anyone supporting AMLO since most people here are afraid that his ideas will threaten the little bit of "luxury" they have. The sad thing is that here in Monterrey people work like crazy in order to emulate the US standard of living--- SUVs, cable TV, washing machines DVDs etc. Materialism is rampant and i see it as a result of the influence of the US. People think that PANs ideas of capitalism somehow has made them richer and better off... what is really going on is that the big US corporations use the educated people of MTY as fodder for jobs that they would have to pay workers in the US more for. I believe that AMLO won but since he is in contra to what they believe is the ideal, the majority of people here believe as you say--- That AMLO is a sore loser. I dont know if this contributes alot to this discussion but i just thought i would say something since this has been such a drama. An interesting site to check out is Narconews for more ideas on what happened in this election.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Living in Monterrey Posted by: sea4to
» RE: Living in Monterrey Posted by: Juven
» RE: Living in Monterrey Posted by: sea4to
Fair Vote
Posted by: RWCowboy on Jul 10, 2006 8:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It still amazes me that the liberals think Gore and Kerry actually won the elections against Bush and that somehow it was Bush that stole the election? As I recall, Bush won the first count in Florida and every re-count of the votes. It was Gore that took it to court in an attempt to "steal" the election! And where are the court cases from the person that was cheated out of their vote (not from someone on a non-existant persons behalf filing claims)? The claims that Bush stole the elction and the same claims you are making for Mexico is nothing more that idle chatter....

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Fair Vote Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Fair Vote Posted by: Ghoulman
» RE: Fair Vote Posted by: richardpmendola
» RE: Fair Vote Posted by: RWCowboy
» RE: Fair Vote Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Fair Vote Posted by: RWCowboy
» RE: Fair Vote Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Fair Vote Posted by: RWCowboy
» RE: Fair Vote Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Fair Vote Posted by: sea4to
» RE: Fair Vote Posted by: RWCowboy
» RE: Fair Vote Posted by: RWCowboy
» RE: Fair Vote Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Fair Vote Posted by: RWCowboy
» RE: Fair Vote Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Fair Vote Posted by: Christine
Dumb systems
Posted by: veive on Jul 10, 2006 9:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Mexico ought to wise up and move to a runoff election when there's no clear winner. With two guys each getting just over a third of the vote, how the hell does Mexico think there's a clear winner. Without a clear winner there is no mandate and very little real progress will be possible in the political arena. Wise up and revise your electoral system.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Dumb systems Posted by: jules_siegel
» RE: Dumb systems Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Dumb systems Posted by: veive
» RE: Dumb systems Posted by: sea4to
» RE: Dumb systems Posted by: perruche
» RE: Dumb systems Posted by: HeroesAll
» RE: Dumb systems Posted by: Joshua Holland
Outsource the US election to TRIFE
Posted by: cold2touch on Jul 10, 2006 10:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
since we don't have anyone qualified for the job.
Harriet Meirs is the "best qualified American" according to Bush and Katherine Harris can't be far behind.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Mexico's election
Posted by: willymack on Jul 10, 2006 10:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Let's face it, folks; Lopez Obrador won the election; the rove boys' tactics notwithstanding. It'll be interesting to see of the Mexican people are as stupid and gutless as we Americans were in 2000, 2002, 2004, and( probably) in 2006 & 2008.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Who Won.
Posted by: RWCowboy on Jul 10, 2006 11:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The general them I am seeing here, is that if you don't win the election then the other side had to have cheated! Sounds like a coach complaining about the referres for every game they lose. In sports they are called "bad losers"!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Who Won. Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Who Won. Posted by: jules_siegel
» RE: Who Won. Posted by: RWCowboy
» RE: Who Won. Posted by: Ratskii
Socialist Next-Door Neighbors? I Haven´t Lost Hope Yet
Posted by: ZPaul on Jul 10, 2006 11:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The possibility of having our South-of-the-border neighbor go Socialist sounds almost too good to be true. But I haven´t lost hope yet. Besides rejoicing for the Mexican people´s good fortune should that happen, I must admit I would have a very good chuckle thinking about the looks on BushCo´s faces when the news was conveyed to them.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

An independent election regulation board?
Posted by: Asses of Evil on Jul 10, 2006 11:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hey, having read these comments, although obviously nothing is set in stone, this doesn't sound like a bad idea for the US, you know, since we are the Land of the Free (patent pending). Hmmm...how about the Supreme Court? Oh...yeah....forget that....

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Fair election?
Posted by: davcrock on Jul 10, 2006 7:13 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Call me cynical, but quite a few people here seem ready to say that Obrador won the election while clamoring for a "fair" recount.

What is fair? Is fair what gets Obrador elected? Would the only 'fair' recount of 2000 American election end with Gore as president?

Does fairness only swing one way?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Fair election? Posted by: Joshua Holland
Some of the shenanigans behind the Mexican vote
Posted by: dkm on Jul 12, 2006 8:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
According to a report here in Mexico, the head of the Electoral Commission was the best man at Calderon's wedding, and one of the people responsible for providing the software used to do the counting is Calderon's brother-in-law. In a society run by compadrismo, this is almost solid evidence that the vote tally was not accurate.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]