COMMENTS: 65
Mexico: Calderón Hasn't Won
Sign up to stay up to date on the latest headlines via email.
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.
The magistrates will have quite a bit of grist for the mill. The strongest evidence that parties as yet unknown -- using methods that are not yet clear -- tried to deliver the election to Calderón on a silver plate comes from the preliminary tally on July 2. That process, known as the PREP, is based on reports compiled at polling places. It gave Calderón a lead of about 1 percent -- enough to go to the media and declare victory. If the margin had been decisive, the TRIFE might have declared a winner based on the PREP alone, without an official count of the actas.
That night, the IFE declared that the canvas had represented over 98 percent of all votes, but after pressure from the PRD and the media, it conceded that over 2.5 million votes weren't included in the PREP. Mexican bloggers are reporting that grassroots PRD activists gathered dozens of photographs of actas posted outside polling places that didn't match up with the PREP reports; the missing votes came from López Obrador's column.
Physicist Jorge López at the University of Texas, El Paso conducted a statistical analysis of the PREP results and found that, as the results came in, the candidates' totals tracked almost perfectly with one another. One would expect that as results from each party's geographic strongholds were counted, their percentage of the total would rise and their opponent's would fall. He also noted that there was very little deviation between the actual results as they came in and the average results; in a normal, natural distribution, one would expect significant differences between the two (it should look something like a bell-shaped curve). Dr. López concluded the pattern was "a clear indication that the data was manufactured by an algorithm and does not stand a chance at passing as data originated at the actual voting."
But the PREP isn't the official result of the balloting (it's a crime punishable by imprisonment to file a false acta, but not to send in a false PREP report). The TRIFE will be looking at the actual votes.
So far, at least three reports of completed ballots found trashed in dumpsters have been splashed across the front pages of major Mexican newspapers. Independent foreign observers have reported seeing vote-buying firsthand, along with votes being counted without representatives from all major parties present, a violation of Mexican law.
Ted Lewis, head of the Global Exchange observer mission, told El Universal that his team and its Mexican partner, Alianza CÃvica, conducted a statistical analysis of the results and found "that the number of votes for Congress in various instances exceeded the number of votes for the presidency in states where López Obrador reportedly won, while the opposite was true in states where Calderón was the victor."
While stopping short of charging outright fraud in the race, Lewis said: "We're really quite disturbed. We didn't expect to see this level of irregularity."
The TRIFE will have to sort through all of this. Mexico's nascent democracy hangs on the perceived impartiality of their rulings.
Stay up to date with the latest AlterNet headlines via email
Comments are closed-
Posted by: HeroesAll on Jul 10, 2006 2:46 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
» RE: Already, though, it looks like a win for their system
Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Already, though, it looks like a win for their system
Posted by: HeroesAll
» RE: Already, though, it looks like a win for their system
Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Already, though, it looks like a win for their system
Posted by: HeroesAll
Comments are closed-
Posted by: rsaxto on Jul 10, 2006 4:05 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: jules_siegel on Jul 10, 2006 4:32 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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: JDMB
» 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: cold2touch
» RE: Another great report from you!
Posted by: jules_siegel
» RE: Another great report from you!
Posted by: cold2touch
Comments are closed-
Posted by: the islander on Jul 10, 2006 5:41 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: antiapathy on Jul 10, 2006 6:31 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: xbj on Jul 10, 2006 7:01 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
» RE: Yeah, and Bush didn't win in 2000 OR 2004, EITHER.
Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Yeah, and Bush didn't win in 2000 OR 2004, EITHER.
Posted by: xbj
» RE: Yeah, and Bush didn't win in 2000 OR 2004, EITHER.
Posted by: AnaB
» RE: Yeah, and Bush didn't win in 2000 OR 2004, EITHER.
Posted by: xbj
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Juven on Jul 10, 2006 8:01 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« 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
Comments are closed-
Posted by: RWCowboy on Jul 10, 2006 8:16 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« 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
Comments are closed-
Posted by: veive on Jul 10, 2006 9:42 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« 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
Comments are closed-
Posted by: cold2touch on Jul 10, 2006 10:00 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: willymack on Jul 10, 2006 10:11 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: RWCowboy on Jul 10, 2006 11:00 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« 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
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ZPaul on Jul 10, 2006 11:02 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Socialist Next-Door Neighbors? I Haven´t Lost Hope Yet
Posted by: jules_siegel
» RE: Socialist Next-Door Neighbors? I Haven´t Lost Hope Yet
Posted by: ZPaul
» RE: Socialist Next-Door Neighbors? I Haven´t Lost Hope Yet
Posted by: sea4to
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Asses of Evil on Jul 10, 2006 11:03 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: davcrock on Jul 10, 2006 7:13 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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
Comments are closed-
Posted by: dkm on Jul 12, 2006 8:14 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
My Experience with a Psychedelic Plant That Thousands Have Used for Release from Severe Addictions
Is Using a Checklist the Answer to All Your Problems?
On Anniversary of Iraq Invasion, Time to Rethink Anti-War Activism




