Sunday, August 27, 2006
MEXICO: Huge political crisis rocks country
Peter Gellert, Mexico City
Following presidential elections widely viewed as marred by fraud, Mexico’s political crisis not only shows no signs of being resolved, but in fact is intensifying almost daily.
In the six weeks since the July 2 presidential elections, two sides have squared off. On one side are the federal government, its electoral authorities, and the conservative National Action Party (PAN) and its candidate Felipe Calderon, defending their razor-thin 0.6% margin of victory as the legitimate election results. On the other side are the For the Good of All coalition headed by the Party of the Democratic Revolution (PRD), its candidate Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador (known as AMLO) and the social sectors and mass organisations of most of the left and progressive movements.
Given the close vote and AMLO’s charges of electoral fraud, a partial recount of 9% of the country’s 131,000 polling stations was ordered by the Federal Electoral Tribunal. AMLO and his supporters, however, have been demanding a 100% recount. The recount, which began on August 9, has not resolved the dispute. The AMLO forces charge serious discrepancies, even on the basis of the small 9% sample, among them:
In 43% of the sample, Calderon had been accredited with more votes than he actually received, lowering his total number of votes by 13,500. This was 5000% more votes than AMLO lost in the recount.
In 65% of the recounted polling stations, there were either more ballots deposited than there were voters or more voters than there were corresponding ballots. In Mexico, control of the paper ballots is extremely strict. In the 9% of the polling stations that were recounted, these discrepancies involved 120,000 ballots — half the difference between the two candidates nationwide across all the polling stations.
More than 30% of the supposedly sealed ballot boxes had been opened after the elections, raising the spectre that their contents were altered.
With the official difference being about two votes per ballot box, AMLO has insisted on a full recount and nullifying results in the 7600 polling stations of the 9% sample that had discrepancies. If the polling stations showing too many or too few ballots in the partial recount were to be annulled, AMLO would win the elections.
While the evidence of fraud is circumstantial, it is also strong and, given Mexico’s tradition of fraudulent elections, AMLO’s charges are considered by many to be credible. A poll by the conservative daily Reforma indicated that 65% of Mexico City residents feel fraud was committed and that all votes should be recounted.
The PRD also charges that Mexican electoral law was violated prior to election day by incumbent President Vicente Fox’s support for Calderon’s campaign, by a particularly vicious media campaign against AMLO (attempting to tie him to Venezuela’s President Hugo Chavez), and by business associations illegally placing advertisements on television implicitly attacking the PRD candidate.
Although electoral authorities often forced an end to such practices, the damage had already been done and the punishment was so ridiculously minimal that there was no deterrent to further infractions.
On August 18, a video was played on Mexican television demonstrating the existence of a plot against AMLO involving top-level government officials, PAN leaders and Argentine-Mexican businessperson Carlos Ahumada, who is under investigation for fraud committed against the Mexico City administration. The City Prosecutor’s Office announced it would file penal charges against federal government officials who protected or helped Ahumada.
In addition to myriad legal challenges, the PRD and AMLO have waged a mass campaign in the streets demanding a full recount. Demonstrations take place on an almost daily basis. On July 30, up to 2.4 million people participated in the largest demonstration in Mexico’s history.
While the PRD and the junior partners in its electoral coalition make no claims to be socialist or revolutionary, they have nonetheless mounted a strong campaign against electoral fraud and have refused to “negotiate” a solution with the national government.
Since July 30, thousands of demonstrators have been camped out in Mexico City’s central square and an eight-kilometre stretch along Reforma avenue, a main city artery. Federal police have cordoned off the area around parliament with tanks. All of this has considerably exacerbated the city’s already nightmarish traffic.
Besides the continuing occupation of downtown Mexico City, thousands of Lopez Obrador supporters are also engaged in daily acts of civil resistance.
The PAN and business associations have called on the Mexico City government — which is headed by the PRD — to evict the protesters, however local officials have refused. The mass media has waged a campaign against the protests, attempting to whip up a backlash among middle class residents inconvenienced by the mammoth traffic jams.
As a next step, AMLO has called for the formation of the National Democratic Convention on September 16 (Independence Day) to unite grassroots and social organisations behind a program not just centred on electoral democracy, but also addressing the country’s social problems.
Many far left and social organisations that didn’t participate in AMLO’s campaign are involved in the anti-fraud protests. Along the eight kilometre stretch of encampments, a wide array of neighbourhood associations, unions, student groups and political organisations can be found.
Unfortunately, the Other Campaign, an initiative launched by the Zapatista National Liberation Army and headed by the charismatic Subcomandante Marcos, while condemning the fraud, has abstained from the mass demonstrations. During the election campaign, the Other Campaign centred most of its fire on AMLO and the obvious deficiencies in the PRD’s program and methods. Some organisations that participated in the Other Campaign are, however, involved in the anti-fraud protests.
If Calderon is declared the victor by the Federal Electoral Tribunal on August 31 — which most view as the likely outcome — from the word go the new government will face a bitterly divided country, with major sectors of the population questioning the government’s legitimacy and huge and powerful mass movements that consider it their declared adversary.
Major battles are clearly on the horizon in Mexico.
From Green Left Weekly, August 30, 2006.
Visit the Green Left Weekly home page.
Following presidential elections widely viewed as marred by fraud, Mexico’s political crisis not only shows no signs of being resolved, but in fact is intensifying almost daily.
In the six weeks since the July 2 presidential elections, two sides have squared off. On one side are the federal government, its electoral authorities, and the conservative National Action Party (PAN) and its candidate Felipe Calderon, defending their razor-thin 0.6% margin of victory as the legitimate election results. On the other side are the For the Good of All coalition headed by the Party of the Democratic Revolution (PRD), its candidate Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador (known as AMLO) and the social sectors and mass organisations of most of the left and progressive movements.
Given the close vote and AMLO’s charges of electoral fraud, a partial recount of 9% of the country’s 131,000 polling stations was ordered by the Federal Electoral Tribunal. AMLO and his supporters, however, have been demanding a 100% recount. The recount, which began on August 9, has not resolved the dispute. The AMLO forces charge serious discrepancies, even on the basis of the small 9% sample, among them:
In 43% of the sample, Calderon had been accredited with more votes than he actually received, lowering his total number of votes by 13,500. This was 5000% more votes than AMLO lost in the recount.
In 65% of the recounted polling stations, there were either more ballots deposited than there were voters or more voters than there were corresponding ballots. In Mexico, control of the paper ballots is extremely strict. In the 9% of the polling stations that were recounted, these discrepancies involved 120,000 ballots — half the difference between the two candidates nationwide across all the polling stations.
More than 30% of the supposedly sealed ballot boxes had been opened after the elections, raising the spectre that their contents were altered.
With the official difference being about two votes per ballot box, AMLO has insisted on a full recount and nullifying results in the 7600 polling stations of the 9% sample that had discrepancies. If the polling stations showing too many or too few ballots in the partial recount were to be annulled, AMLO would win the elections.
While the evidence of fraud is circumstantial, it is also strong and, given Mexico’s tradition of fraudulent elections, AMLO’s charges are considered by many to be credible. A poll by the conservative daily Reforma indicated that 65% of Mexico City residents feel fraud was committed and that all votes should be recounted.
The PRD also charges that Mexican electoral law was violated prior to election day by incumbent President Vicente Fox’s support for Calderon’s campaign, by a particularly vicious media campaign against AMLO (attempting to tie him to Venezuela’s President Hugo Chavez), and by business associations illegally placing advertisements on television implicitly attacking the PRD candidate.
Although electoral authorities often forced an end to such practices, the damage had already been done and the punishment was so ridiculously minimal that there was no deterrent to further infractions.
On August 18, a video was played on Mexican television demonstrating the existence of a plot against AMLO involving top-level government officials, PAN leaders and Argentine-Mexican businessperson Carlos Ahumada, who is under investigation for fraud committed against the Mexico City administration. The City Prosecutor’s Office announced it would file penal charges against federal government officials who protected or helped Ahumada.
In addition to myriad legal challenges, the PRD and AMLO have waged a mass campaign in the streets demanding a full recount. Demonstrations take place on an almost daily basis. On July 30, up to 2.4 million people participated in the largest demonstration in Mexico’s history.
While the PRD and the junior partners in its electoral coalition make no claims to be socialist or revolutionary, they have nonetheless mounted a strong campaign against electoral fraud and have refused to “negotiate” a solution with the national government.
Since July 30, thousands of demonstrators have been camped out in Mexico City’s central square and an eight-kilometre stretch along Reforma avenue, a main city artery. Federal police have cordoned off the area around parliament with tanks. All of this has considerably exacerbated the city’s already nightmarish traffic.
Besides the continuing occupation of downtown Mexico City, thousands of Lopez Obrador supporters are also engaged in daily acts of civil resistance.
The PAN and business associations have called on the Mexico City government — which is headed by the PRD — to evict the protesters, however local officials have refused. The mass media has waged a campaign against the protests, attempting to whip up a backlash among middle class residents inconvenienced by the mammoth traffic jams.
As a next step, AMLO has called for the formation of the National Democratic Convention on September 16 (Independence Day) to unite grassroots and social organisations behind a program not just centred on electoral democracy, but also addressing the country’s social problems.
Many far left and social organisations that didn’t participate in AMLO’s campaign are involved in the anti-fraud protests. Along the eight kilometre stretch of encampments, a wide array of neighbourhood associations, unions, student groups and political organisations can be found.
Unfortunately, the Other Campaign, an initiative launched by the Zapatista National Liberation Army and headed by the charismatic Subcomandante Marcos, while condemning the fraud, has abstained from the mass demonstrations. During the election campaign, the Other Campaign centred most of its fire on AMLO and the obvious deficiencies in the PRD’s program and methods. Some organisations that participated in the Other Campaign are, however, involved in the anti-fraud protests.
If Calderon is declared the victor by the Federal Electoral Tribunal on August 31 — which most view as the likely outcome — from the word go the new government will face a bitterly divided country, with major sectors of the population questioning the government’s legitimacy and huge and powerful mass movements that consider it their declared adversary.
Major battles are clearly on the horizon in Mexico.
From Green Left Weekly, August 30, 2006.
Visit the Green Left Weekly home page.
Friday, August 25, 2006
En espera de la imposición anunciada
Viernes 25 de agosto de 2006
Economia Moral
Julio Boltvinik
En espera de la imposición anunciada
Guanajuato, capital del fraude, según muestra análisis del recuentoLa economía moral es convocada a existir como resistencia a la economía del "libre mercado": el alza del precio del pan puede equilibrar la oferta y la demanda de pan, pero no resuelve el hambre de la gente
Confirmando lo anticipado a los medios, el presidente de la Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación (SCJN) rechazó "como evidentemente improcedente" la demanda, firmada por más de 16 mil ciudadanos para que, en atención a lo señalado en el artículo 97 de la Constitución Política de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos, ejerciese su facultad investigadora para determinar si hubo violación al voto público en las pasadas elecciones presidenciales. Sin embargo, el asunto no acaba ahí, pues ante el recurso de inconformidad interpuesto, la decisión de la SCJN tendrá que ser colectiva. De esta manera se encuentran ya involucrados en la decisión sobre las elecciones los dos órganos supremos del Poder Judicial: la SCJN y el Tribunal Electoral del Poder Judicial de la Federación (TEPJF). Ambos cargarán con el peso de lo que decidan, y en el caso de la SCJN, incluso si deja que transcurra el tiempo para no decidir, lo hará por omisión.
Mientras, sigamos analizando las evidencias disponibles sobre el fraude electoral. Por cortesía de amigos de la izquierda mexicana, he recibido la base de datos del recuento parcial ordenado por el TEPJF, que ha elaborado el equipo de AMLO ante la opacidad informativa del tribunal y que contiene la información de las casi 12 mil casillas con los resultados del recuento de los votos por partido, de los votos nulos, por candidatos no registrados, y de las boletas sobrantes. Esta base de datos ha permitido al equipo de AMLO obtener comparaciones por distrito y por entidad federativa de los resultados entre el recuento y el conteo distrital (CD). La base de datos contiene 11 mil 763, es decir, 109 casillas menos que el recuento total, que no habían podido capturar.
En el CD las casillas recontadas registraron un total de 3 millones 861 mil 446 votos (incluyendo nulos y para candidatos no registrados), total que disminuyó en 10 mil 667 votos para quedar en 3 millones 850 mil 799 en el recuento. Este cambio parece pequeño, sólo 0.276 por ciento, menos de la mitad de la supuesta ventaja de Felipe Calderón (FC) respecto a AMLO. Sin embargo, resulta de la suma algebraica entre los votos adicionales obtenidos en el recuento (votos subestimados en el CD) en algunas casillas y votos que no aparecieron en el recuento (inflados en el CD) en otras casillas, que fueron de 38 mil 8 y 48 mil 655 respectivamente. Por tanto, la masa de errores o trampas, sólo en el total de los votos, sin entrar todavía al desglose entre partidos ni al respaldo de los votos en boletas, fue de 86 mil 663 votos, equivalentes a 7.4 votos por casilla y al 2.25 por ciento de los votos totales del recuento.
Se trata de errores gigantescos, de orden de magnitud similar al error estadístico en encuestas con muestras muy pequeñas. Los que alegan que no hubo dolo ni fraude tendrían que aceptar que un sistema electoral que se equivoca en más de 2 por ciento del total de votos es un sistema inservible, incapaz de discernir al ganador en elecciones cerradas y que, por tanto, tendría que anularse la elección presidencial. Pero veamos qué pasó en los votos por partido.
FC tuvo una pérdida neta de 13 mil 335 votos como resultado del recuento y AMLO una pérdida neta de 43 votos, habiéndose en consecuencia reducido la distancia entre ambos en 13 mil 292 votos que representan 0.35 por ciento de los totales del recuento, lo que equivale a una reducción de la ventaja de FC de 1.14 votos por casilla, lo que resulta muy sustancial si se recuerda que la supuesta ventaja de FC es de 1.87 por casilla a nivel nacional. Sin embargo, las pérdidas netas de ambos candidatos son el resultado de la suma algebraica de sus ganancias y pérdidas. FC perdió 19 mil 110 votos (es decir, en el CD su votación estaba inflada en esa cantidad) y ganó, en otras casillas, 5 mil 775 votos (es decir, en ellas su votación estaba subestimada en el CD). Las cifras respectivas para AMLO son 6 mil 205 y 6 mil 162. Otra vez, si fueran errores, serían gigantescos, particularmente en el caso de FC, con errores totales de 24 mil 885 votos, equivalentes a 2.14 votos por casilla en promedio, y a 1.33 por ciento de su votación total.
Sorpresivamente, los mayores errores porcentuales, y muy sustanciales errores absolutos, se encuentran en los votos asignados a los nuevos partidos, a los no registrados y a los votos declarados nulos, como se muestra de manera sintética en el cuadro anexo. Los votos nulos pasaron de 75 mil 977 en el CD a 78 mil 430 en recuento, un aumento neto de 2 mil 453 que representa el 3.1 por ciento del total. Otra vez, sin embargo, este aumento neto es la suma algebraica de 11 mil 288 adiciones y 8 mil 835 eliminaciones ocurridas en diferentes casillas. Esto significa que en el CD hubo errores referidos a votos nulos por un total de 20 mil 123, equivalentes a 1.72 por casilla y a 25.7 por ciento (¡más de la cuarta parte!) del total de votos nulos del recuento. Si este nivel de errores se mantuviera a nivel nacional, y no hay ninguna razón para suponer que no sea así, donde según el CD se anularon 904 mil 604 votos, habría habido errores por 232 mil 483 votos (anulados indebidamente o dados por buenos cuando debieron anularse) cifra muy cercana a la supuesta ventaja de FC.
En el CD se contaron mil 905 votos de menos a candidatos no registrados, lo que asciende a 6 por ciento de la votación total, mientras la suma de errores representa 24.7 por ciento, otra vez la cuarta parte del total (véase cuadro). Los votos por Patricia Mercado también estaban subestimados en mil 836 en el CD, y la suma de errores en su caso asciende a 4 por ciento de su votación. Como se aprecia, estaban subestimados en el CD los votos nulos, los dirigidos a candidatos no registrados y a Mercado. En cambio, los votos por Roberto Campa estaban sobrestimados en mil 578, 3.8 por ciento de su votación, y sus errores totales suman 9 por ciento de su votación. Los votos por Roberto Madrazo, en cambio, estaban sobrestimados en el CD en 0.2 por ciento, aunque la suma de errores es de 1.6 por ciento.
Si a este panorama añadimos los resultados antes proporcionados para FC y AMLO, queda claro que: 1) los mayores errores (o trampas) en números absolutos y por casilla están en los votos por Calderón y en los nulos (ambos suman más de la mitad del total), seguidos por los de Madrazo y AMLO. Sin embargo, los errores como porcentaje de la votación son mucho más elevados entre los votos nulos, los no registrados y Campa. No parece haber, pues, un comportamiento regido por las reglas del azar que son las que prevalecen en los errores humanos pero no en la acción dolosa, acentuándose así las evidencias de fraude.
La base de datos y las tabulaciones realizadas por el equipo de AMLO permiten también analizar por entidad federativa y distrito los resultados del recuento. Nuevamente, si las diferencias entre el CD y el recuento se explicaran por errores humanos, las diferencias entre entidades federativas se repartirían de manera proporcional al número de casillas o al número de votos en ellas instaladas o emitidos. No es así. De las poco menos de 12 mil casillas recontadas, casi una cuarta parte (22.8 por ciento) se localizaron en Jalisco, seguido muy de lejos por Baja California (9.6 por ciento) y Tamaulipas (8 por ciento). En estas tres entidades federativas se llevó a cabo el recuento de 40.4 por ciento de las casillas y esperaría uno encontrar en ellas una proporción cercana de los errores identificados, si fueran errores. En cambio, en Guanajuato se recontaron únicamente 317 casillas (2.7 por ciento del total) y en ellas esperaría uno encontrar una proporción igualmente baja de los errores. En ambos casos la evidencia se mueve en sentido contrario.
Analicemos el comportamiento de los errores en los votos para FC y para AMLO en las casillas recontadas en Guanajuato. En primer lugar, de los votos netos perdidos por Calderón (indicación de la sobreestimación efectuada en el CD) ascendieron a 3 mil 508, 26.3 por ciento del total, muy por debajo de lo esperado en la suma de las tres entidades federativas con mayor número de casillas. En agudo contraste, en Guanajuato, donde sólo se recontó 2.7 por ciento de las casillas, FC tiene una pérdida neta de 6 mil 103 votos, muy por arriba de los votos perdidos en las tres entidades, que representa 45.8 por ciento del total del recuento ordenado por el TEPJF y 19.3 votos por casilla. Este acontecimiento no puede ocurrir nunca por azar. El fraude en Guanajuato es brutal, lo que se sospechaba desde que uno miraba las cifras del CD, según las cuales FC obtuvo en Guanajuato 58.9 por ciento de los votos y arrasó en todos los distritos. Si la sobrestimación por casilla en el conteo distrital se expande a toda la entidad, resulta que en una sola entidad federativa el registro oficial de los votos por FC estaría inflado en 118 mil votos, casi la mitad de su supuesta ventaja nacional.
Una conclusión similar , aunque menos drástica, se obtiene si se analizan los errores de más y de menos a favor de FC, ya que esta suma, de 6 mil 515 votos en Guanajuato es mayor que la de Jalisco (5 mil 836) a pesar que las casillas recontadas en la segunda son 8.5 veces mayores que en la primera. Pero no sólo eso. La asimetría en los errores a favor y en contra de FC son muy contrastantes entre Guanajuato y las tres entidades que venimos usando de ejemplo. En Guanajuato los votos perdidos por FC al hacerse el recuento son 31 veces más altos que los que ganó, mientras son 2.2 veces en Baja California, 2.1 en Jalisco y 3.2 en Tamaulipas. Como lo sabe cualquier persona que haya pasado por un curso elemental de estadística, las proporciones en estas tres entidades también son imposibles como resultado de errores, que se cometen con las reglas del azar. Pero el caso de Guanajuato es de escándalo.
Todo lo anterior se obtiene solamente mostrando lo que en el desplegado de la semana pasada, la coalición Por el Bien de Todos llamó un resultado secundario del recuento, y que en efecto puede verse así ya que supone que los votos encontrados en los paquetes electorales son el "reflejo palpitante de la voluntad de los electores". Sabemos que no es así y que en alrededor de la mitad de las casillas hay inconsistencias entre las boletas recibidas en la casilla y la suma de la votación total y las boletas sobrantes, como lo analicé en la entrega anterior de Economía Moral (18/8/06).
jbolt@colmex.mx
© Derechos Reservados 1996-2005 DEMOS, Desarrollo de Medios, S.A. de C.V.Todos los Derechos Reservados.Derechos de Autor 04-2005-011817321500-203.
En espera de la imposición anunciada
Viernes 25 de agosto de 2006
Economia Moral
Julio Boltvinik
En espera de la imposición anunciada
Guanajuato, capital del fraude, según muestra análisis del recuentoLa economía moral es convocada a existir como resistencia a la economía del "libre mercado": el alza del precio del pan puede equilibrar la oferta y la demanda de pan, pero no resuelve el hambre de la gente
Confirmando lo anticipado a los medios, el presidente de la Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación (SCJN) rechazó "como evidentemente improcedente" la demanda, firmada por más de 16 mil ciudadanos para que, en atención a lo señalado en el artículo 97 de la Constitución Política de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos, ejerciese su facultad investigadora para determinar si hubo violación al voto público en las pasadas elecciones presidenciales. Sin embargo, el asunto no acaba ahí, pues ante el recurso de inconformidad interpuesto, la decisión de la SCJN tendrá que ser colectiva. De esta manera se encuentran ya involucrados en la decisión sobre las elecciones los dos órganos supremos del Poder Judicial: la SCJN y el Tribunal Electoral del Poder Judicial de la Federación (TEPJF). Ambos cargarán con el peso de lo que decidan, y en el caso de la SCJN, incluso si deja que transcurra el tiempo para no decidir, lo hará por omisión.
Mientras, sigamos analizando las evidencias disponibles sobre el fraude electoral. Por cortesía de amigos de la izquierda mexicana, he recibido la base de datos del recuento parcial ordenado por el TEPJF, que ha elaborado el equipo de AMLO ante la opacidad informativa del tribunal y que contiene la información de las casi 12 mil casillas con los resultados del recuento de los votos por partido, de los votos nulos, por candidatos no registrados, y de las boletas sobrantes. Esta base de datos ha permitido al equipo de AMLO obtener comparaciones por distrito y por entidad federativa de los resultados entre el recuento y el conteo distrital (CD). La base de datos contiene 11 mil 763, es decir, 109 casillas menos que el recuento total, que no habían podido capturar.
En el CD las casillas recontadas registraron un total de 3 millones 861 mil 446 votos (incluyendo nulos y para candidatos no registrados), total que disminuyó en 10 mil 667 votos para quedar en 3 millones 850 mil 799 en el recuento. Este cambio parece pequeño, sólo 0.276 por ciento, menos de la mitad de la supuesta ventaja de Felipe Calderón (FC) respecto a AMLO. Sin embargo, resulta de la suma algebraica entre los votos adicionales obtenidos en el recuento (votos subestimados en el CD) en algunas casillas y votos que no aparecieron en el recuento (inflados en el CD) en otras casillas, que fueron de 38 mil 8 y 48 mil 655 respectivamente. Por tanto, la masa de errores o trampas, sólo en el total de los votos, sin entrar todavía al desglose entre partidos ni al respaldo de los votos en boletas, fue de 86 mil 663 votos, equivalentes a 7.4 votos por casilla y al 2.25 por ciento de los votos totales del recuento.
Se trata de errores gigantescos, de orden de magnitud similar al error estadístico en encuestas con muestras muy pequeñas. Los que alegan que no hubo dolo ni fraude tendrían que aceptar que un sistema electoral que se equivoca en más de 2 por ciento del total de votos es un sistema inservible, incapaz de discernir al ganador en elecciones cerradas y que, por tanto, tendría que anularse la elección presidencial. Pero veamos qué pasó en los votos por partido.
FC tuvo una pérdida neta de 13 mil 335 votos como resultado del recuento y AMLO una pérdida neta de 43 votos, habiéndose en consecuencia reducido la distancia entre ambos en 13 mil 292 votos que representan 0.35 por ciento de los totales del recuento, lo que equivale a una reducción de la ventaja de FC de 1.14 votos por casilla, lo que resulta muy sustancial si se recuerda que la supuesta ventaja de FC es de 1.87 por casilla a nivel nacional. Sin embargo, las pérdidas netas de ambos candidatos son el resultado de la suma algebraica de sus ganancias y pérdidas. FC perdió 19 mil 110 votos (es decir, en el CD su votación estaba inflada en esa cantidad) y ganó, en otras casillas, 5 mil 775 votos (es decir, en ellas su votación estaba subestimada en el CD). Las cifras respectivas para AMLO son 6 mil 205 y 6 mil 162. Otra vez, si fueran errores, serían gigantescos, particularmente en el caso de FC, con errores totales de 24 mil 885 votos, equivalentes a 2.14 votos por casilla en promedio, y a 1.33 por ciento de su votación total.
Sorpresivamente, los mayores errores porcentuales, y muy sustanciales errores absolutos, se encuentran en los votos asignados a los nuevos partidos, a los no registrados y a los votos declarados nulos, como se muestra de manera sintética en el cuadro anexo. Los votos nulos pasaron de 75 mil 977 en el CD a 78 mil 430 en recuento, un aumento neto de 2 mil 453 que representa el 3.1 por ciento del total. Otra vez, sin embargo, este aumento neto es la suma algebraica de 11 mil 288 adiciones y 8 mil 835 eliminaciones ocurridas en diferentes casillas. Esto significa que en el CD hubo errores referidos a votos nulos por un total de 20 mil 123, equivalentes a 1.72 por casilla y a 25.7 por ciento (¡más de la cuarta parte!) del total de votos nulos del recuento. Si este nivel de errores se mantuviera a nivel nacional, y no hay ninguna razón para suponer que no sea así, donde según el CD se anularon 904 mil 604 votos, habría habido errores por 232 mil 483 votos (anulados indebidamente o dados por buenos cuando debieron anularse) cifra muy cercana a la supuesta ventaja de FC.
En el CD se contaron mil 905 votos de menos a candidatos no registrados, lo que asciende a 6 por ciento de la votación total, mientras la suma de errores representa 24.7 por ciento, otra vez la cuarta parte del total (véase cuadro). Los votos por Patricia Mercado también estaban subestimados en mil 836 en el CD, y la suma de errores en su caso asciende a 4 por ciento de su votación. Como se aprecia, estaban subestimados en el CD los votos nulos, los dirigidos a candidatos no registrados y a Mercado. En cambio, los votos por Roberto Campa estaban sobrestimados en mil 578, 3.8 por ciento de su votación, y sus errores totales suman 9 por ciento de su votación. Los votos por Roberto Madrazo, en cambio, estaban sobrestimados en el CD en 0.2 por ciento, aunque la suma de errores es de 1.6 por ciento.
Si a este panorama añadimos los resultados antes proporcionados para FC y AMLO, queda claro que: 1) los mayores errores (o trampas) en números absolutos y por casilla están en los votos por Calderón y en los nulos (ambos suman más de la mitad del total), seguidos por los de Madrazo y AMLO. Sin embargo, los errores como porcentaje de la votación son mucho más elevados entre los votos nulos, los no registrados y Campa. No parece haber, pues, un comportamiento regido por las reglas del azar que son las que prevalecen en los errores humanos pero no en la acción dolosa, acentuándose así las evidencias de fraude.
La base de datos y las tabulaciones realizadas por el equipo de AMLO permiten también analizar por entidad federativa y distrito los resultados del recuento. Nuevamente, si las diferencias entre el CD y el recuento se explicaran por errores humanos, las diferencias entre entidades federativas se repartirían de manera proporcional al número de casillas o al número de votos en ellas instaladas o emitidos. No es así. De las poco menos de 12 mil casillas recontadas, casi una cuarta parte (22.8 por ciento) se localizaron en Jalisco, seguido muy de lejos por Baja California (9.6 por ciento) y Tamaulipas (8 por ciento). En estas tres entidades federativas se llevó a cabo el recuento de 40.4 por ciento de las casillas y esperaría uno encontrar en ellas una proporción cercana de los errores identificados, si fueran errores. En cambio, en Guanajuato se recontaron únicamente 317 casillas (2.7 por ciento del total) y en ellas esperaría uno encontrar una proporción igualmente baja de los errores. En ambos casos la evidencia se mueve en sentido contrario.
Analicemos el comportamiento de los errores en los votos para FC y para AMLO en las casillas recontadas en Guanajuato. En primer lugar, de los votos netos perdidos por Calderón (indicación de la sobreestimación efectuada en el CD) ascendieron a 3 mil 508, 26.3 por ciento del total, muy por debajo de lo esperado en la suma de las tres entidades federativas con mayor número de casillas. En agudo contraste, en Guanajuato, donde sólo se recontó 2.7 por ciento de las casillas, FC tiene una pérdida neta de 6 mil 103 votos, muy por arriba de los votos perdidos en las tres entidades, que representa 45.8 por ciento del total del recuento ordenado por el TEPJF y 19.3 votos por casilla. Este acontecimiento no puede ocurrir nunca por azar. El fraude en Guanajuato es brutal, lo que se sospechaba desde que uno miraba las cifras del CD, según las cuales FC obtuvo en Guanajuato 58.9 por ciento de los votos y arrasó en todos los distritos. Si la sobrestimación por casilla en el conteo distrital se expande a toda la entidad, resulta que en una sola entidad federativa el registro oficial de los votos por FC estaría inflado en 118 mil votos, casi la mitad de su supuesta ventaja nacional.
Una conclusión similar , aunque menos drástica, se obtiene si se analizan los errores de más y de menos a favor de FC, ya que esta suma, de 6 mil 515 votos en Guanajuato es mayor que la de Jalisco (5 mil 836) a pesar que las casillas recontadas en la segunda son 8.5 veces mayores que en la primera. Pero no sólo eso. La asimetría en los errores a favor y en contra de FC son muy contrastantes entre Guanajuato y las tres entidades que venimos usando de ejemplo. En Guanajuato los votos perdidos por FC al hacerse el recuento son 31 veces más altos que los que ganó, mientras son 2.2 veces en Baja California, 2.1 en Jalisco y 3.2 en Tamaulipas. Como lo sabe cualquier persona que haya pasado por un curso elemental de estadística, las proporciones en estas tres entidades también son imposibles como resultado de errores, que se cometen con las reglas del azar. Pero el caso de Guanajuato es de escándalo.
Todo lo anterior se obtiene solamente mostrando lo que en el desplegado de la semana pasada, la coalición Por el Bien de Todos llamó un resultado secundario del recuento, y que en efecto puede verse así ya que supone que los votos encontrados en los paquetes electorales son el "reflejo palpitante de la voluntad de los electores". Sabemos que no es así y que en alrededor de la mitad de las casillas hay inconsistencias entre las boletas recibidas en la casilla y la suma de la votación total y las boletas sobrantes, como lo analicé en la entrega anterior de Economía Moral (18/8/06).
jbolt@colmex.mx
© Derechos Reservados 1996-2005 DEMOS, Desarrollo de Medios, S.A. de C.V.Todos los Derechos Reservados.Derechos de Autor 04-2005-011817321500-203.
Economia Moral
Julio Boltvinik
En espera de la imposición anunciada
Guanajuato, capital del fraude, según muestra análisis del recuentoLa economía moral es convocada a existir como resistencia a la economía del "libre mercado": el alza del precio del pan puede equilibrar la oferta y la demanda de pan, pero no resuelve el hambre de la gente
Confirmando lo anticipado a los medios, el presidente de la Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación (SCJN) rechazó "como evidentemente improcedente" la demanda, firmada por más de 16 mil ciudadanos para que, en atención a lo señalado en el artículo 97 de la Constitución Política de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos, ejerciese su facultad investigadora para determinar si hubo violación al voto público en las pasadas elecciones presidenciales. Sin embargo, el asunto no acaba ahí, pues ante el recurso de inconformidad interpuesto, la decisión de la SCJN tendrá que ser colectiva. De esta manera se encuentran ya involucrados en la decisión sobre las elecciones los dos órganos supremos del Poder Judicial: la SCJN y el Tribunal Electoral del Poder Judicial de la Federación (TEPJF). Ambos cargarán con el peso de lo que decidan, y en el caso de la SCJN, incluso si deja que transcurra el tiempo para no decidir, lo hará por omisión.
Mientras, sigamos analizando las evidencias disponibles sobre el fraude electoral. Por cortesía de amigos de la izquierda mexicana, he recibido la base de datos del recuento parcial ordenado por el TEPJF, que ha elaborado el equipo de AMLO ante la opacidad informativa del tribunal y que contiene la información de las casi 12 mil casillas con los resultados del recuento de los votos por partido, de los votos nulos, por candidatos no registrados, y de las boletas sobrantes. Esta base de datos ha permitido al equipo de AMLO obtener comparaciones por distrito y por entidad federativa de los resultados entre el recuento y el conteo distrital (CD). La base de datos contiene 11 mil 763, es decir, 109 casillas menos que el recuento total, que no habían podido capturar.
En el CD las casillas recontadas registraron un total de 3 millones 861 mil 446 votos (incluyendo nulos y para candidatos no registrados), total que disminuyó en 10 mil 667 votos para quedar en 3 millones 850 mil 799 en el recuento. Este cambio parece pequeño, sólo 0.276 por ciento, menos de la mitad de la supuesta ventaja de Felipe Calderón (FC) respecto a AMLO. Sin embargo, resulta de la suma algebraica entre los votos adicionales obtenidos en el recuento (votos subestimados en el CD) en algunas casillas y votos que no aparecieron en el recuento (inflados en el CD) en otras casillas, que fueron de 38 mil 8 y 48 mil 655 respectivamente. Por tanto, la masa de errores o trampas, sólo en el total de los votos, sin entrar todavía al desglose entre partidos ni al respaldo de los votos en boletas, fue de 86 mil 663 votos, equivalentes a 7.4 votos por casilla y al 2.25 por ciento de los votos totales del recuento.
Se trata de errores gigantescos, de orden de magnitud similar al error estadístico en encuestas con muestras muy pequeñas. Los que alegan que no hubo dolo ni fraude tendrían que aceptar que un sistema electoral que se equivoca en más de 2 por ciento del total de votos es un sistema inservible, incapaz de discernir al ganador en elecciones cerradas y que, por tanto, tendría que anularse la elección presidencial. Pero veamos qué pasó en los votos por partido.
FC tuvo una pérdida neta de 13 mil 335 votos como resultado del recuento y AMLO una pérdida neta de 43 votos, habiéndose en consecuencia reducido la distancia entre ambos en 13 mil 292 votos que representan 0.35 por ciento de los totales del recuento, lo que equivale a una reducción de la ventaja de FC de 1.14 votos por casilla, lo que resulta muy sustancial si se recuerda que la supuesta ventaja de FC es de 1.87 por casilla a nivel nacional. Sin embargo, las pérdidas netas de ambos candidatos son el resultado de la suma algebraica de sus ganancias y pérdidas. FC perdió 19 mil 110 votos (es decir, en el CD su votación estaba inflada en esa cantidad) y ganó, en otras casillas, 5 mil 775 votos (es decir, en ellas su votación estaba subestimada en el CD). Las cifras respectivas para AMLO son 6 mil 205 y 6 mil 162. Otra vez, si fueran errores, serían gigantescos, particularmente en el caso de FC, con errores totales de 24 mil 885 votos, equivalentes a 2.14 votos por casilla en promedio, y a 1.33 por ciento de su votación total.
Sorpresivamente, los mayores errores porcentuales, y muy sustanciales errores absolutos, se encuentran en los votos asignados a los nuevos partidos, a los no registrados y a los votos declarados nulos, como se muestra de manera sintética en el cuadro anexo. Los votos nulos pasaron de 75 mil 977 en el CD a 78 mil 430 en recuento, un aumento neto de 2 mil 453 que representa el 3.1 por ciento del total. Otra vez, sin embargo, este aumento neto es la suma algebraica de 11 mil 288 adiciones y 8 mil 835 eliminaciones ocurridas en diferentes casillas. Esto significa que en el CD hubo errores referidos a votos nulos por un total de 20 mil 123, equivalentes a 1.72 por casilla y a 25.7 por ciento (¡más de la cuarta parte!) del total de votos nulos del recuento. Si este nivel de errores se mantuviera a nivel nacional, y no hay ninguna razón para suponer que no sea así, donde según el CD se anularon 904 mil 604 votos, habría habido errores por 232 mil 483 votos (anulados indebidamente o dados por buenos cuando debieron anularse) cifra muy cercana a la supuesta ventaja de FC.
En el CD se contaron mil 905 votos de menos a candidatos no registrados, lo que asciende a 6 por ciento de la votación total, mientras la suma de errores representa 24.7 por ciento, otra vez la cuarta parte del total (véase cuadro). Los votos por Patricia Mercado también estaban subestimados en mil 836 en el CD, y la suma de errores en su caso asciende a 4 por ciento de su votación. Como se aprecia, estaban subestimados en el CD los votos nulos, los dirigidos a candidatos no registrados y a Mercado. En cambio, los votos por Roberto Campa estaban sobrestimados en mil 578, 3.8 por ciento de su votación, y sus errores totales suman 9 por ciento de su votación. Los votos por Roberto Madrazo, en cambio, estaban sobrestimados en el CD en 0.2 por ciento, aunque la suma de errores es de 1.6 por ciento.
Si a este panorama añadimos los resultados antes proporcionados para FC y AMLO, queda claro que: 1) los mayores errores (o trampas) en números absolutos y por casilla están en los votos por Calderón y en los nulos (ambos suman más de la mitad del total), seguidos por los de Madrazo y AMLO. Sin embargo, los errores como porcentaje de la votación son mucho más elevados entre los votos nulos, los no registrados y Campa. No parece haber, pues, un comportamiento regido por las reglas del azar que son las que prevalecen en los errores humanos pero no en la acción dolosa, acentuándose así las evidencias de fraude.
La base de datos y las tabulaciones realizadas por el equipo de AMLO permiten también analizar por entidad federativa y distrito los resultados del recuento. Nuevamente, si las diferencias entre el CD y el recuento se explicaran por errores humanos, las diferencias entre entidades federativas se repartirían de manera proporcional al número de casillas o al número de votos en ellas instaladas o emitidos. No es así. De las poco menos de 12 mil casillas recontadas, casi una cuarta parte (22.8 por ciento) se localizaron en Jalisco, seguido muy de lejos por Baja California (9.6 por ciento) y Tamaulipas (8 por ciento). En estas tres entidades federativas se llevó a cabo el recuento de 40.4 por ciento de las casillas y esperaría uno encontrar en ellas una proporción cercana de los errores identificados, si fueran errores. En cambio, en Guanajuato se recontaron únicamente 317 casillas (2.7 por ciento del total) y en ellas esperaría uno encontrar una proporción igualmente baja de los errores. En ambos casos la evidencia se mueve en sentido contrario.
Analicemos el comportamiento de los errores en los votos para FC y para AMLO en las casillas recontadas en Guanajuato. En primer lugar, de los votos netos perdidos por Calderón (indicación de la sobreestimación efectuada en el CD) ascendieron a 3 mil 508, 26.3 por ciento del total, muy por debajo de lo esperado en la suma de las tres entidades federativas con mayor número de casillas. En agudo contraste, en Guanajuato, donde sólo se recontó 2.7 por ciento de las casillas, FC tiene una pérdida neta de 6 mil 103 votos, muy por arriba de los votos perdidos en las tres entidades, que representa 45.8 por ciento del total del recuento ordenado por el TEPJF y 19.3 votos por casilla. Este acontecimiento no puede ocurrir nunca por azar. El fraude en Guanajuato es brutal, lo que se sospechaba desde que uno miraba las cifras del CD, según las cuales FC obtuvo en Guanajuato 58.9 por ciento de los votos y arrasó en todos los distritos. Si la sobrestimación por casilla en el conteo distrital se expande a toda la entidad, resulta que en una sola entidad federativa el registro oficial de los votos por FC estaría inflado en 118 mil votos, casi la mitad de su supuesta ventaja nacional.
Una conclusión similar , aunque menos drástica, se obtiene si se analizan los errores de más y de menos a favor de FC, ya que esta suma, de 6 mil 515 votos en Guanajuato es mayor que la de Jalisco (5 mil 836) a pesar que las casillas recontadas en la segunda son 8.5 veces mayores que en la primera. Pero no sólo eso. La asimetría en los errores a favor y en contra de FC son muy contrastantes entre Guanajuato y las tres entidades que venimos usando de ejemplo. En Guanajuato los votos perdidos por FC al hacerse el recuento son 31 veces más altos que los que ganó, mientras son 2.2 veces en Baja California, 2.1 en Jalisco y 3.2 en Tamaulipas. Como lo sabe cualquier persona que haya pasado por un curso elemental de estadística, las proporciones en estas tres entidades también son imposibles como resultado de errores, que se cometen con las reglas del azar. Pero el caso de Guanajuato es de escándalo.
Todo lo anterior se obtiene solamente mostrando lo que en el desplegado de la semana pasada, la coalición Por el Bien de Todos llamó un resultado secundario del recuento, y que en efecto puede verse así ya que supone que los votos encontrados en los paquetes electorales son el "reflejo palpitante de la voluntad de los electores". Sabemos que no es así y que en alrededor de la mitad de las casillas hay inconsistencias entre las boletas recibidas en la casilla y la suma de la votación total y las boletas sobrantes, como lo analicé en la entrega anterior de Economía Moral (18/8/06).
jbolt@colmex.mx
© Derechos Reservados 1996-2005 DEMOS, Desarrollo de Medios, S.A. de C.V.Todos los Derechos Reservados.Derechos de Autor 04-2005-011817321500-203.
Was the Mexican Election Stolen? Questions Raised Over Results From Preliminary Recount
Thursday, August 24th, 2006
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/08/24/1425237
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As protests for Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador continue in Mexico, we take a look at the country’s contested presidential election. Mexico’s Mark Weisbrot of the Center for Economic and Policy Research’s says Mexico’s handling of the recount raises questions about the lack of transparency in the recount and the election. [includes rush transcript]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Mexico, President Vicente Fox said this week that his ruling party ally, Felipe Calderon, was the "clear winner" of the country’s disputed presidential election. His comments came ten days before Mexico"s top electoral court is to rule on fraud claims brought by populist candidate Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador.
Fox also warned against what he called "extremist" and "messianic" politics in a clear criticism of Lopez Obrador who has launched massive demonstrations over the past few weeks to press for a full ballot-by-ballot recount of the vote. Official tally results in July put Calderon ahead by two hundred forty thousand votes - or just over half a percentage point. Lopez Obrador soon filed claims challenging the results alleging fraud and government interference.
Supporters of Lopez Obrador have brought the capital to a virtual standstill over the past few weeks with round-the-clock protest camps, blocking streets and launching demonstrations. The electoral court has to rule on the fraud claims by the end of the month and name a new president by September 6th.
The Washington-based Center for Economic and Policy Research recently conducted an analysis (PDF) of Mexico’s recounted ballots that raises questions about the lack of transparency in the recount.
Mark Weisbrot, co-director at the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, DC.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RUSH TRANSCRIPT
This transcript is available free of charge. However, donations help us provide closed captioning for the deaf and hard of hearing on our TV broadcast. Thank you for your generous contribution.
Donate - $25, $50, $100, more...
AMY GOODMAN: The Washington-based Center for Economic and Policy Research recently conducted an analysis of Mexico's recounted ballots that raises questions about the lack of transparency in the recount. We're joined now by the group's co-director Mark Weisbrot. We welcome you to Democracy Now!
MARK WEISBROT: Thank you. It’s good to be here.
AMY GOODMAN: What did you find?
MARK WEISBROT: Well, we looked at the first recount, which they didn't really release the results very well of that either, and that was only 2.2% that they recounted. But they've since recounted 9%, and they won't tell us what the results of those are. And that’s, I think, a major violation of basic transparency.
But also we do know certain things. I mean, we've analyzed the data. For example, the Lopez Obrador campaign has claimed that in the majority, the vast majority of the ballot boxes, the ballots were not really kept track of. So each ballot box gets a certain amount of ballots. And then, the total votes plus the leftover blanks are supposed to add up to the ballots that you got at the beginning of the election. And that didn't add up for the majority of the ballot boxes. So right there, and we verified that by just analyzing the data that's available. And so, that's true, and that, by itself -- and that's why it's so strange for the President of the country to say that it's extremist or to even declare that there's a winner, when you have -- more than half of the ballot boxes don't add up. And that by itself is enough of a reason to have a full recount, even aside from all the other irregularities, and there's quite a few.
JUAN GONZALEZ: And this issue of the recount that was done, of this 9% of the ballots, it's been now, what, a couple of weeks since they completed that recount? And the political parties had observers there, so they all have their versions of what happened there. But there's no official announcement yet of these results?
MARK WEISBROT: No. And I think, again, that's deliberate, because right now we have the two versions. If you take Lopez Obrador's version, which I think is probably true, they said that Calderon lost 13,000 votes, which is about 1% of his total, and Lopez Obrador didn’t lose any. So if you look at the media reports, they say 5,000 to 7,000. But either way, that's a lot, and it's clearly going only one way. In other words, the recount showed that only one side had votes that were thrown out in the partial recount. Again, another very big reason to do a full recount and another reason, I think, why they're not releasing the results, because if everybody got to see the results of this partial recount, they might be forced -- they might have public pressure to do a full recount.
JUAN GONZALEZ: And these massive demonstrations that have been occurring now in Mexico City for weeks, they have gotten very little coverage here in the United States. I’m thinking back to when the massive protests in the Ukraine and some of the other Russian republics over allegations of election fraud. But there hasn't been much coverage here in the U.S. press of these protests right with our southern neighbor.
MARK WEISBROT: No. Not very much. And especially the allegations, like the one I just said before. That's not even allegation. That's a verifiable fact, that you have the majority of ballot boxes where the votes don’t add up, the ballots aren't kept track of. So that hasn’t -- the media hasn't made an issue out of that. And they haven't made any issue out of the fact that the tribunal is withholding the results. And I’m actually worried that they're going to not even wait until the August 31 deadline. They’re going to announce the result before the public gets to see what happened in the two recounts that they already did.
AMY GOODMAN: What does this mean for the future of Mexico?
MARK WEISBROT: Well, I think it's huge. I mean, the issues in this election are very big. Mexico has had a terrible economic failure over the last 25 years. The total economic growth has been about 17% per capita over a 25-year period, as opposed to 99% from 1960 to 1980. And it's been a terrible failure, a terrible economic failure.
AMY GOODMAN: We have ten seconds, unfortunately.
MARK WEISBROT: So this is really -- there's two competing candidates with two competing visions of economic policy and what they're going do for poor people in this country.
AMY GOODMAN: And do you think Lopez Obrador will ever concede? Do you think he could be declared the victor?
MARK WEISBROT: It's possible. It depends again on if there's public pressure to do a full recount or to nullify the results of the election. I don't think they would have even gotten the partial recount if he hadn't brought over a million people into the streets.
AMY GOODMAN: Mark Weisbrot, I want to thank you for being with us, of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington.
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/08/24/1425237
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As protests for Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador continue in Mexico, we take a look at the country’s contested presidential election. Mexico’s Mark Weisbrot of the Center for Economic and Policy Research’s says Mexico’s handling of the recount raises questions about the lack of transparency in the recount and the election. [includes rush transcript]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Mexico, President Vicente Fox said this week that his ruling party ally, Felipe Calderon, was the "clear winner" of the country’s disputed presidential election. His comments came ten days before Mexico"s top electoral court is to rule on fraud claims brought by populist candidate Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador.
Fox also warned against what he called "extremist" and "messianic" politics in a clear criticism of Lopez Obrador who has launched massive demonstrations over the past few weeks to press for a full ballot-by-ballot recount of the vote. Official tally results in July put Calderon ahead by two hundred forty thousand votes - or just over half a percentage point. Lopez Obrador soon filed claims challenging the results alleging fraud and government interference.
Supporters of Lopez Obrador have brought the capital to a virtual standstill over the past few weeks with round-the-clock protest camps, blocking streets and launching demonstrations. The electoral court has to rule on the fraud claims by the end of the month and name a new president by September 6th.
The Washington-based Center for Economic and Policy Research recently conducted an analysis (PDF) of Mexico’s recounted ballots that raises questions about the lack of transparency in the recount.
Mark Weisbrot, co-director at the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, DC.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RUSH TRANSCRIPT
This transcript is available free of charge. However, donations help us provide closed captioning for the deaf and hard of hearing on our TV broadcast. Thank you for your generous contribution.
Donate - $25, $50, $100, more...
AMY GOODMAN: The Washington-based Center for Economic and Policy Research recently conducted an analysis of Mexico's recounted ballots that raises questions about the lack of transparency in the recount. We're joined now by the group's co-director Mark Weisbrot. We welcome you to Democracy Now!
MARK WEISBROT: Thank you. It’s good to be here.
AMY GOODMAN: What did you find?
MARK WEISBROT: Well, we looked at the first recount, which they didn't really release the results very well of that either, and that was only 2.2% that they recounted. But they've since recounted 9%, and they won't tell us what the results of those are. And that’s, I think, a major violation of basic transparency.
But also we do know certain things. I mean, we've analyzed the data. For example, the Lopez Obrador campaign has claimed that in the majority, the vast majority of the ballot boxes, the ballots were not really kept track of. So each ballot box gets a certain amount of ballots. And then, the total votes plus the leftover blanks are supposed to add up to the ballots that you got at the beginning of the election. And that didn't add up for the majority of the ballot boxes. So right there, and we verified that by just analyzing the data that's available. And so, that's true, and that, by itself -- and that's why it's so strange for the President of the country to say that it's extremist or to even declare that there's a winner, when you have -- more than half of the ballot boxes don't add up. And that by itself is enough of a reason to have a full recount, even aside from all the other irregularities, and there's quite a few.
JUAN GONZALEZ: And this issue of the recount that was done, of this 9% of the ballots, it's been now, what, a couple of weeks since they completed that recount? And the political parties had observers there, so they all have their versions of what happened there. But there's no official announcement yet of these results?
MARK WEISBROT: No. And I think, again, that's deliberate, because right now we have the two versions. If you take Lopez Obrador's version, which I think is probably true, they said that Calderon lost 13,000 votes, which is about 1% of his total, and Lopez Obrador didn’t lose any. So if you look at the media reports, they say 5,000 to 7,000. But either way, that's a lot, and it's clearly going only one way. In other words, the recount showed that only one side had votes that were thrown out in the partial recount. Again, another very big reason to do a full recount and another reason, I think, why they're not releasing the results, because if everybody got to see the results of this partial recount, they might be forced -- they might have public pressure to do a full recount.
JUAN GONZALEZ: And these massive demonstrations that have been occurring now in Mexico City for weeks, they have gotten very little coverage here in the United States. I’m thinking back to when the massive protests in the Ukraine and some of the other Russian republics over allegations of election fraud. But there hasn't been much coverage here in the U.S. press of these protests right with our southern neighbor.
MARK WEISBROT: No. Not very much. And especially the allegations, like the one I just said before. That's not even allegation. That's a verifiable fact, that you have the majority of ballot boxes where the votes don’t add up, the ballots aren't kept track of. So that hasn’t -- the media hasn't made an issue out of that. And they haven't made any issue out of the fact that the tribunal is withholding the results. And I’m actually worried that they're going to not even wait until the August 31 deadline. They’re going to announce the result before the public gets to see what happened in the two recounts that they already did.
AMY GOODMAN: What does this mean for the future of Mexico?
MARK WEISBROT: Well, I think it's huge. I mean, the issues in this election are very big. Mexico has had a terrible economic failure over the last 25 years. The total economic growth has been about 17% per capita over a 25-year period, as opposed to 99% from 1960 to 1980. And it's been a terrible failure, a terrible economic failure.
AMY GOODMAN: We have ten seconds, unfortunately.
MARK WEISBROT: So this is really -- there's two competing candidates with two competing visions of economic policy and what they're going do for poor people in this country.
AMY GOODMAN: And do you think Lopez Obrador will ever concede? Do you think he could be declared the victor?
MARK WEISBROT: It's possible. It depends again on if there's public pressure to do a full recount or to nullify the results of the election. I don't think they would have even gotten the partial recount if he hadn't brought over a million people into the streets.
AMY GOODMAN: Mark Weisbrot, I want to thank you for being with us, of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington.
Wednesday, August 23, 2006
Battle for Mexico's democratic soul
By Franc Contreras BBC News, Mexico City
Politics has often been a violent affair in Mexico. And after decades of virtual one-party rule, July's parliamentary election has caused bitter recrimination.
Some have called outgoing president Vicente Fox a "traitor to democracy", allowing his party's candidate, Felipe Calderon, to win. The row highlights the cynicism most Mexicans feel towards their politicians and institutions.
I got word last week that there would be yet another massive demonstration in the capitol's main square, the Zocalo.
Out in the street I realised that I had put on a white shirt and blue jeans. Blue and white are the colours of the conservative right candidate, Felipe Calderon. The rally I'd be attending would be filled with people who disdain him.
They are die-hard supporters of the centre-left candidate, Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, whose colours are yellow and black. I quickly changed my shirt and went downtown.
'Wanted criminal'
By the time I got to the Zocalo, the side streets leading up to it were jammed, once again, with angry people demanding a full recount of all the ballots in the July presidential election.
Since 2000 Mexico has been changing dramatically
Many carried signs declaring President Vicente Fox "a traitor to democracy". They believe he orchestrated the election to favour his party's conservative candidate, Felipe Calderon.
People in the crowd held up posters, declaring the top election official "a wanted criminal".
Most of Mr Lopez Obrador's supporters are poor Mexicans who truly believe that election fraud took place here, and this, for them, is nothing less than a battle for Mexico's democratic soul.
One woman in the crowd told me, "What do we have to lose by being here? Our pay checks barely allow us to pay the rent and keep our children fed and clothed."
She reminded me that Mr Lopez Obrador has promised to make the poor his top priority. But that pledge won't matter much, unless he becomes the president.
It has been a difficult prospect all along. Last year, government officials from Mr Fox's administration tried to charge the leftist candidate with a minor crime.
By attempting to convict him, they would have stripped him of his right to run for public office. But international pressure came down on the Fox administration and the case was thrown out.
Pragmatic mayor
During the presidential campaign, Mr Lopez Obrador's rivals compared him to Venezuela's firebrand leftist president, Hugo Chavez. Mr Calderon's television ads regularly labelled the leftist politician as "a danger to Mexico".
That struck me as deeply exaggerated and clearly designed to manipulate public opinion. The Federal Electoral Tribunal agreed, and forced Mr Calderon to remove the ads from TV.
I've been living in Mexico City for 10 years. During the last four, Mr Lopez Obrador was mayor here. He showed himself to be at least as pragmatic as his conservative rival.
Both men know that they cannot ignore business interests or the growing throngs of poverty-stricken Mexicans.
As I waded deeper into the crowd, I felt very claustrophobic - pressed up against a stone wall. The crowd kept coming. I called out, "keep calm, keep calm, don't push." It was more a message to myself as my anxiety grew.
Mr Lopez Obrador began his speech with charismatic words, reminding his faithful followers of the historic inequalities they have suffered over generations.
He called for a full recount. Only then, he said could fellow Mexicans rest assured that the election was fair.
Mr Lopez Obrador has shown the world that he can call his supporters out in huge numbers when he wants to. And that they can paralyse key parts of the city's financial district.
Lack of faith
But his talent for organising explains only part of the reason why his followers take to the streets this way.
The unspoken factor in all this is the deeply-rooted lack of trust that Mexicans have in their government, officials and institutions. Sure, this is common feeling around the world. But Mexicans' lack of faith seems especially acute.
It can be found from the northern deserts on the US border to the country's tropical regions and in the deep, indigenous south near the border with Guatemala.
This is part of the legacy of more than 70 years of single-party rule. Citizens would know a year before each election who their next president would be.
Invariably, he would belong to the Institutional Revolutionary Party, or PRI. The party used all manner of fraudulent techniques to win 16 consecutive presidential elections.
The regime got so good at it, that Mexicans created a special vocabulary for vote fraud. Ballot boxes stuffed with PRI votes were called pregnant urns. A folder containing ballots for the ruling party's candidate was called a "taco".
Moment of truth
After the historic presidential election in 2000, voters peacefully brought an end to that regime. That was unprecedented. Since the Spanish Conquest, regime change in Mexico had always been a violent business.
Since 2000 the country has been changing dramatically. It is still in a process of maturing and desperately trying to consolidate its democracy.
In a way the current stalemate is a test for the Mexican people themselves. This is their moment of truth.
If the judges rule that Mr Calderon is the winner, will large sections of Mexican society believe them? Or will they take to the streets and make it impossible for him to govern?
Everyone is talking about what happens next. But right now, what matters most is whether Mexicans have faith in the judicial process and whether they will have to think twice about what colours to wear on their next trip downtown.
Three Ways to Listen From Our Own Correspondent
Terms of use
Feedback
BBC Trial Information
Story from BBC NEWS:http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/5266834.stmPublished: 2006/08/19 15:35:01 GMT© BBC MMVI
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/5266834.stm
Tuesday, August 22, 2006
Is Mexico Nearing an Election Resolution?
With Deadline Approaching, Runner-up Remains Defiant
John M. Ackerman
Professor, Institute for Legal Research, National Autonomous University of Mexico
Wednesday, August 9, 2006; 12:00 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2006/08/08/DI2006080800873_pf.html
John Ackerman, a professor at the National Autonomous University of Mexico's Institute for Legal Research, was online Wednesday, Aug. 9, at noon ET to discuss the impact of continuing protests in Mexico City in support of Andrés Manuel López Obrador, and a refusal by Mexico's election tribunal to conduct a full vote recount.
Felipe Calderón has declared himself the winner of Mexico's July 2 presidential elections , despite his opponent's refusal to concede . For the past week, López Obrador has lived in a tent in Mexico City's Zocalo square along with tens of thousands of demonstrators. López Obrador has said he will not accept the results of a partial recount, even after a special election court rejected his request for a full recount. The court must declare a winner by Sept. 6.
Protests escalated as the partial recount was set to begin, with Mexican leftists blockading the offices of three major foreign-owned banks , and briefly taking over highway toll booths .
Ackerman has written for various publications, including the New York Times and Mexico's Reforma newspaper. He is a senior consultant to the World Bank and vice president of the International Association of Administrative Law. He is also coordinator of the Research Program on Accountability, Legality and the Rule of Law at the Latin American Faculty of Social Sciences in Mexico City.
Read commentary by Ackerman in The San Diego Union-Tribune , The Houston Chronicle , and Revista Proceso (in Spanish)(pdf).
The transcript follows.
____________________
Ceci Connolly: Welcome to today's live chat with John Ackerman, a legal scholar on Mexican politics. Before we open up the conversation to your questions, I'd like to thank John for joining us and ask you: Does the partial recount beginning today in Mexico suggest the end is near for Andrés Manuel López Obrador?
_______________________
John Ackerman: The partial recount the Tribunal called for on Saturday is indeed very bad news for López Obrador. Although the Tribunal could theoretically still call for a full recount later and this would be entirely legal, the arguments which the justices offered on Saturday would make this extremely difficult.
This is highly problematic because if serious irregularities are discovered in the partial recount there will be increased social demands for a full recount. But, in this case, pretty much the only option the justices have left for themselves is to "annul" or simply not declare the election valid and call for new elections.
_______________________
Mexico City, Mexico: Mr. Ackerman: the Mexican government and it's electoral institutions have failed to make this election a democratically solid and reliable process. Now the answer from the left is also barely legal, and illegal in some cases. From your point of view, Is there any way that future actions from the government and from the opposition could allow Mexican people to recover (if there ever was any) the trust and belief in the electoral process and it's public institutions?
John Ackerman: Really the best solution is a full recount. This is not at all a radical demand being made by López Obrador. It is basic common sense in an election which is as close as this one. The Electoral Tribunal would be entirely within its legal jurisdiction to call for such a full recount and this is really the only way to reconstruct faith in Mexico's electoral institutions. Otherwise, a cloud of doubt will remain hanging over things and this will make things extremely difficult for Mexican politics.
The other option is a "citizen recount" after the election is over. This would not have legal standing, but if it confirmed the electoral authorities results it would greatly legitimate the election. On the other hand, if it came up with a different result, this could lead to serious political crisis. The best answer would be for the Tribunal to change its criteria and call for a full recount ASAP.
_______________________
West Orange, N.J.: An August 6 WP article states that López Obrador trails by about 240,000 votes or about 0.5% of the votes cast. It says nothing about any evidence of alleged fraud. Are there many districts were gross vote counts were suspiciously high or low? In the PRI era, ballots could be 95%+ (or maybe more than 100%, counting the dead) in favor of the official candidate. Did the first count of the 2006 ballot feature any overt signs of shenanigans? Are the odds high or low that a full recount would yield a materially different outcome?
washingtonpost.com: Mexican Runner-Up Remains Defiant
John Ackerman: The question of whether there was outright fraud or not is still up in the air. López Obrador has made some pretty important allegations and there are enough apparent irregularities in the vote count and in surrounding events (tell tale phone calls and e-mails between government officials and political operators) that there is a reasonable doubt with regard to the election results.
A full recount would clarify things once and for all and calm down the political situation significantly.
_______________________
Ceci Connolly: For those interested in the recount process which began this morning, here's an excellent overview from El Universal. http://www.mexiconews.com.mx/19756.html
_______________________
Bethesda, Md.: As someone who used to live in Mexico City, but doesn't have first-hand experience of recent events, I'd like to know a couple of things about the protests by AMLO supporters: Is there a different mood among the protestors than there was after Cardenas' contested defeat in the late 1980's? Do some AMLO voters believe he should accept the official results, or do all of them want to fight on? What stretch of Reforma does the encampment cover -- from the Angel to the Zocalo? More? Less? And are the people in the encampment mostly being cheered on, or booed, by encampment neighbors and passersby? Thanks.
John Ackerman: Thanks for your questions. I wasn't here in 1988, but from what people have told me there is much more hope now among the AMLO supporters than in 1988 that they might actually be successful this time. People consistently state that now they have a "real" leader who is organizing resistance, not like Cardenas who supposedly left the movement hanging in 1988.
The encampment goes far beyond the Angel, all the way to the Fuente de Petroleos in the exclusive Lomas section of town. They are both booed and cheered, depending on what section of Reforma you are on.
_______________________
Guadalajara, Mexico: You make the statement that: "a Felipe Calderón presidency will hold a weak hand in dealing with the Mexican Congress, where his party only has a minority." Wouldn't this be equally true if López Obrador was declared president of Mexico? While López Obrador calls for a full recount, is it not true that he only petitioned the TRIFE for a full recount in only a few areas of the country?
John Ackerman: Yes, of course. Either way, the incoming president will have to conduct major political negotiations with Congress.
The López Obrador challenge to the election has two prongs to it. On the one hand, he challenged tens of thousands of particular voting booths. On the other hand, he has challenged the election as a whole, calling for a full recount to clear up any and all doubts.
On Saturday the Tribunal threw out the general challenge as a reason to conduct a full recount (although these arguments still could be used later to annul the election as a whole). The Tribunal decided to follow an extremely limited, strict interpretation of the law and only review Obrador's challenges of specific voting booths.
This itself was a political (although legal) decision on the part of the Tribunal. They could have easily called for a full recount based on AMLO's more general claims.
_______________________
Cancun, Mexico: Greg Palast has been putting out a series of what I consider very poorly researched articles on the Mexican election. In his latest he finally acknowledges the clarity of the ballots themselves and the fact that they were filled out and counted manually. He continues to harp on why the million (actually around 820,000) null votes are not being counted. I don't believe that this was one of demands in the PRD's legal brief, which according to what I've read was deficient in more than one technical aspect. Could you explain this and also brief us on what exactly the PRD asked for in its complaint with the electoral court? I'd also like to know your opinion on charges by columnist Carlos Ramirez that many protestors are being paid by Mexico City construction companies, who he writes are also financially supporting the demonstrations in other ways in return for promises by the PRD that they will get building contracts.
John Ackerman: One of the arguments the PRD did offer for the full recount is the high number of null votes and evidence from the partial recounts that have been conducted that many of these were actually for López Obrador. This is part of the second prong of the challenge which puts into question the election as a whole and calls for a full recount.
I haven't seen Carlos Ramirez's charges, but this sounds extremely unlikely.
_______________________
Queretaro, Mexico: 1. Isn't it unfair to compare the 1988 elections to today's situation? After all, in 1988, the IFE did not exist and votes were counted by the Secretaría de Gobernación. 2. Why is it important that Calderón accept a full recount? This decision is not made based on political negotiation, but by the Electoral Tribunal. 3. Isn't it true that the questionable practices that López Obrador provided evidence for are the basis for the partial recount ordered by the court of those voting places? What evidence is there that there was fraud in the rest of them?
John Ackerman: Good questions. The institutional conditions are indeed very different between 1988 and 2006, and this should have assured an un questionable election. Unfortunately, the present IFE councilors were not appointed by consensus (the PRD was excluded) and they have been less than entirely free of suspicion in the way they have acted.
And if they decide to burn the ballots after the electoral process is over in order to prevent citizens from conducting their own recount we will be right back in 1988.
Calderón is the one who would gain the most from a full recount. This is perhaps the only way he will be able to come in with significant legitimacy to manage Mexico's government.
Once again, you don't have to accept the accusations of fraud to support the idea of a full recount. The full recount is needed precisely so that we can see whether there was fraud or not. The central issue is the transparency of the election.
_______________________
Marquette, Mich.: López Obrador has refused to label himself a populist, but to what extent do he and his supporters fit into the growing movement across Latin America that has seen the election of presidential candidates such as Chavez and Morales?
John Ackerman: The support for López Obrador is definitely parallel to the support for other leftist presidents throughout Latin America (not just Chavez and Morales, but also Vasquez, Lula, Bachelet and Kirchner) in so far as it reflects widespread frustration with the failure of the economic reforms of the past two decades.
But López Obrador is an extremely pragmatic politician. The fact that he believes in the welfare state and things that U.S. citizens take for granted like unemployment insurance and public education does not make him a "danger" for the U.S. or Mexico. Indeed, such policies may be exactly what Mexico needs to stop the tide of emigration to the United States.
_______________________
Marquette, Mich.: If Calderón is declared the winner, does he plan to continue the existing neoliberal policies? And if López Obrador wins, do you imagine a sharp departure from Mexico's current economic policies (specifically in relation to the United States)?
John Ackerman: Calderón has expressed a clear message of continuity with Fox's policies. He will continue along the same line.
López Obrador would not make a radical break and is not at all "anti-U.S.". He is just a pragmatist who believes in the importance of social justice. No radical break, but definitely important changes.
_______________________
Elma, N.Y.: Does López Obrador have sufficient evidence of miscounted votes to call into question the close election victory of his opponent? And is the evidence strong enough to challenge the fairness of the election laws which significantly restrict when you can call for a recount?
John Ackerman: I think so. There is a reasonable doubt about the election results. Enough to justify a full recount. The Mexican constitution, electoral law and the court's jurisprudence would all permit such an action. It is simply incorrect to say that a full recount would be illegal.
_______________________
Washington, D.C.: Does the inability of protesters to create hysteria, if that's the case, basically mean a resolution is approaching? Is their a point when the PRD controlled Mexico City tell Obrador to pack up his tent and go home?
John Ackerman: These next few days will be absolutely crucial. The partial recount began today and must finish before this Sunday. I doubt the Mexico City government will step in, but the federal government has been threatening to do so.
_______________________
Oaxaca, Mexico: The city of Oaxaca de Juarez is under the control of a group demanding the removal of the governor of Oaxaca state. They also control the state television and radio stations and many government offices. Do you see a tie-in between this movement and AMLO's? What possibility do you see for a general uprising of the poor in Mexico?
John Ackerman: Don't see any direct connection between the situation in Oaxaca and AMLO, although both situations reveal the failings of the present governments (state and federal) to satisfy the basic demands of the poor.
Don't think there will be anything like a "revolution", but discontent may indeed spread if the economy doesn't start to pick up.
_______________________
Greeley, Colo.: The democratic formula is 50 % + 1. In the Mexican presidential elections, None of the candidates reached that percentage. How can they even discuss who the winner of the election is when there are no clear indications how they can govern. Shouldn't they form a coalition with other political parties-forces in order to govern?
John Ackerman: Yes. This whole situation reveals the urgent need to reform the electoral and state structures in Mexico. The country definitely needs run-off elections as well as possibly a move towards a pseudo-parliamentary form of government.
_______________________
Tucson, Ariz.: How would an upset by López Obrador affect foreign-owned property in Mexico? Would he try to create a "Mexico for Mexicans" kind of country where property was repossessed by the state?
John Ackerman: No. Not at all. He is definitely in favor of foreign investment and the free market. His top economic adviser, Rogelio Ramírez de la O., is a serious, pragmatic guy. No worries here.
_______________________
Pedro, Chihuahua, Mexico: Do you expect serious irregularities to be found in the recount?
John Ackerman: It is quite likely that the margin between Calderón and AMLO will become much smaller.
_______________________
Burke, Va.: What is your prediction of what will happen if the partial recount is held and there is no change?
John Ackerman: Calderón would be quickly and quietly confirmed by the Electoral Tribunal and AMLO would try to lead a nationwide social movement against neoliberalism.
Hopefully, the IFE would also allow the "citizen recount" to take place. This would help allot to shed light on the election and calm the political situation.
_______________________
Oaxaca, Mexico: Thank you for this discussion. What is your opinion of the involvement of Elba Esther Gordillo in the electoral process? Have you seen the allegations that she diverted educational funds for pro PAN campaigning?
John Ackerman: Very worrisome. Elba Ester Gordillo's (old guard PRIsta union leader) participation is the dark side of the Calderón campaign. If there were serious irregularities they most likely can be attributed to her.
_______________________
New York, N.Y.: Professor Ackerman, The Fox administration had a difficult time passing structural reforms in a divided congress. Regardless of the winner, do you expect the narrow margin to erode an already weak presidential mandate?
John Ackerman: Definitely.
_______________________
Tucson, Ariz.: I understand from friends in Sonora, the north Mexican state south of Arizona, that the same U.S. political group which was instrumental in gaining the election of Bush through various shenanigans, lost votes, uncounted votes, shortages of ballots, etc was also involved in Calderon's win. Is this true?
John Ackerman: I have heard this as well, but don't have any solid sources. All the more reason for a full recount, so as to make sure this didn't happen.
_______________________
Takoma Park, Md.: On July 3, the IFE said that it had counted 99% of the vote. On July 4, it admitted that it had been unable to include 2.5 million votes (roughly 6%). Is there an innocent explanation for this? I sure can't think of one.
John Ackerman: Well, supposedly the parties all new about the "archivo de inconsistencias", but the IFE should have announced this publicly. The fact that they didn't and falsely declared that 99% of the votes had been counted definitely created widespread suspicion.
_______________________
Mexico: Professor Ackerman, I'm studying here in Mexico City. It seems to me that AMLO is the victim of a stolen election. It's obvious that his opponents didn't want him to run and tried T prevent it. Then they tried to link him with Hugo Chavez. This "leftist" as the American press refers to him has massive popular support. Most news sources here are slanted to the right and only seem to report on how disruptive the protest is. If the election is handed to Calderón, I think a revolution is quite possible. Do you agree?
John Ackerman: Definitely don't think a revolution will occur, but if the Tribunal simply rubber stamps the IFE results Calderón will definitely have an extremely difficult time governing.
_______________________
Berlin, Germany: Isn't a complete recount in either way inevitable? In case the outcome doesn't change and Calderón is declared winner AMLO probably won't simply give in but raise pressure on the streets until a full recount will be held. On the other hand, if Calderón will loose the partial recount wouldn't it be logical for him to call for a complete recount?
John Ackerman: A full recount would definitely be in the interests of both candidates and for Mexico as a whole. As you point out, if Calderón turned out to come out behind after this partial recount he would be the first to call for an expansion of the recount!
_______________________
West Orange, N.J.: Assuming that a full recount yields a variance in the total tally greater than the spread between the candidates, aren't both likely to call for new elections? Would this be a two-way run-off? Who would benefit most from votes won by PRI in the original ballot? To what extend are blank or mutilated ballots a factor? Does Mexico's congress have the power to pick a winner in a disputed contest?
John Ackerman: A new election is a very possible scenario. This would not be a two-way run-off, but a competition between all parties if they offered candidates (unless of course electoral law were reformed in the meantime).
There are indeed lots of null votes in this election. Enough to make the difference if a recount were conducted.
The Mexican Congress has no power over the elections. Although if the election were thrown out it would be responsible for naming an interim president.
_______________________
Atlanta, Ga.: One of the points made by the Electoral Tribunal judges in explaining their Saturday ruling on the partial recount is that in the vast majority of polling stations they ordered recounted, the main problem was that the number of recorded votes exceeded the number of recorded voters. The judges then further clarified that the polling officials from IFE had all the authority they needed to recount when there was such clear evidence of simple arithmetic errors. In a tense situation which depends so heavily on trust by parties and voters, why do you think the IFE so clearly (in the view of the judges) fell down on the job by refusing to recount in those thousands and thousands of stations? Did they not realize that by not recounting where there were obvious, obvious errors that they would sow distrust?
John Ackerman: Yes, this was a major mistake of the IFE and did sow wider suspicion about their behavior.
_______________________
Ceci Connolly: I'd like to thank John Ackerman for giving us an hour of his valuable time today. We apologize that not every question could be answered. For more on this never-ending election, tune in to Campaign Conexion http://blog.washingtonpost.com/mexicovotes/. Thanks again!
_______________________
John M. Ackerman
Professor, Institute for Legal Research, National Autonomous University of Mexico
Wednesday, August 9, 2006; 12:00 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2006/08/08/DI2006080800873_pf.html
John Ackerman, a professor at the National Autonomous University of Mexico's Institute for Legal Research, was online Wednesday, Aug. 9, at noon ET to discuss the impact of continuing protests in Mexico City in support of Andrés Manuel López Obrador, and a refusal by Mexico's election tribunal to conduct a full vote recount.
Felipe Calderón has declared himself the winner of Mexico's July 2 presidential elections , despite his opponent's refusal to concede . For the past week, López Obrador has lived in a tent in Mexico City's Zocalo square along with tens of thousands of demonstrators. López Obrador has said he will not accept the results of a partial recount, even after a special election court rejected his request for a full recount. The court must declare a winner by Sept. 6.
Protests escalated as the partial recount was set to begin, with Mexican leftists blockading the offices of three major foreign-owned banks , and briefly taking over highway toll booths .
Ackerman has written for various publications, including the New York Times and Mexico's Reforma newspaper. He is a senior consultant to the World Bank and vice president of the International Association of Administrative Law. He is also coordinator of the Research Program on Accountability, Legality and the Rule of Law at the Latin American Faculty of Social Sciences in Mexico City.
Read commentary by Ackerman in The San Diego Union-Tribune , The Houston Chronicle , and Revista Proceso (in Spanish)(pdf).
The transcript follows.
____________________
Ceci Connolly: Welcome to today's live chat with John Ackerman, a legal scholar on Mexican politics. Before we open up the conversation to your questions, I'd like to thank John for joining us and ask you: Does the partial recount beginning today in Mexico suggest the end is near for Andrés Manuel López Obrador?
_______________________
John Ackerman: The partial recount the Tribunal called for on Saturday is indeed very bad news for López Obrador. Although the Tribunal could theoretically still call for a full recount later and this would be entirely legal, the arguments which the justices offered on Saturday would make this extremely difficult.
This is highly problematic because if serious irregularities are discovered in the partial recount there will be increased social demands for a full recount. But, in this case, pretty much the only option the justices have left for themselves is to "annul" or simply not declare the election valid and call for new elections.
_______________________
Mexico City, Mexico: Mr. Ackerman: the Mexican government and it's electoral institutions have failed to make this election a democratically solid and reliable process. Now the answer from the left is also barely legal, and illegal in some cases. From your point of view, Is there any way that future actions from the government and from the opposition could allow Mexican people to recover (if there ever was any) the trust and belief in the electoral process and it's public institutions?
John Ackerman: Really the best solution is a full recount. This is not at all a radical demand being made by López Obrador. It is basic common sense in an election which is as close as this one. The Electoral Tribunal would be entirely within its legal jurisdiction to call for such a full recount and this is really the only way to reconstruct faith in Mexico's electoral institutions. Otherwise, a cloud of doubt will remain hanging over things and this will make things extremely difficult for Mexican politics.
The other option is a "citizen recount" after the election is over. This would not have legal standing, but if it confirmed the electoral authorities results it would greatly legitimate the election. On the other hand, if it came up with a different result, this could lead to serious political crisis. The best answer would be for the Tribunal to change its criteria and call for a full recount ASAP.
_______________________
West Orange, N.J.: An August 6 WP article states that López Obrador trails by about 240,000 votes or about 0.5% of the votes cast. It says nothing about any evidence of alleged fraud. Are there many districts were gross vote counts were suspiciously high or low? In the PRI era, ballots could be 95%+ (or maybe more than 100%, counting the dead) in favor of the official candidate. Did the first count of the 2006 ballot feature any overt signs of shenanigans? Are the odds high or low that a full recount would yield a materially different outcome?
washingtonpost.com: Mexican Runner-Up Remains Defiant
John Ackerman: The question of whether there was outright fraud or not is still up in the air. López Obrador has made some pretty important allegations and there are enough apparent irregularities in the vote count and in surrounding events (tell tale phone calls and e-mails between government officials and political operators) that there is a reasonable doubt with regard to the election results.
A full recount would clarify things once and for all and calm down the political situation significantly.
_______________________
Ceci Connolly: For those interested in the recount process which began this morning, here's an excellent overview from El Universal. http://www.mexiconews.com.mx/19756.html
_______________________
Bethesda, Md.: As someone who used to live in Mexico City, but doesn't have first-hand experience of recent events, I'd like to know a couple of things about the protests by AMLO supporters: Is there a different mood among the protestors than there was after Cardenas' contested defeat in the late 1980's? Do some AMLO voters believe he should accept the official results, or do all of them want to fight on? What stretch of Reforma does the encampment cover -- from the Angel to the Zocalo? More? Less? And are the people in the encampment mostly being cheered on, or booed, by encampment neighbors and passersby? Thanks.
John Ackerman: Thanks for your questions. I wasn't here in 1988, but from what people have told me there is much more hope now among the AMLO supporters than in 1988 that they might actually be successful this time. People consistently state that now they have a "real" leader who is organizing resistance, not like Cardenas who supposedly left the movement hanging in 1988.
The encampment goes far beyond the Angel, all the way to the Fuente de Petroleos in the exclusive Lomas section of town. They are both booed and cheered, depending on what section of Reforma you are on.
_______________________
Guadalajara, Mexico: You make the statement that: "a Felipe Calderón presidency will hold a weak hand in dealing with the Mexican Congress, where his party only has a minority." Wouldn't this be equally true if López Obrador was declared president of Mexico? While López Obrador calls for a full recount, is it not true that he only petitioned the TRIFE for a full recount in only a few areas of the country?
John Ackerman: Yes, of course. Either way, the incoming president will have to conduct major political negotiations with Congress.
The López Obrador challenge to the election has two prongs to it. On the one hand, he challenged tens of thousands of particular voting booths. On the other hand, he has challenged the election as a whole, calling for a full recount to clear up any and all doubts.
On Saturday the Tribunal threw out the general challenge as a reason to conduct a full recount (although these arguments still could be used later to annul the election as a whole). The Tribunal decided to follow an extremely limited, strict interpretation of the law and only review Obrador's challenges of specific voting booths.
This itself was a political (although legal) decision on the part of the Tribunal. They could have easily called for a full recount based on AMLO's more general claims.
_______________________
Cancun, Mexico: Greg Palast has been putting out a series of what I consider very poorly researched articles on the Mexican election. In his latest he finally acknowledges the clarity of the ballots themselves and the fact that they were filled out and counted manually. He continues to harp on why the million (actually around 820,000) null votes are not being counted. I don't believe that this was one of demands in the PRD's legal brief, which according to what I've read was deficient in more than one technical aspect. Could you explain this and also brief us on what exactly the PRD asked for in its complaint with the electoral court? I'd also like to know your opinion on charges by columnist Carlos Ramirez that many protestors are being paid by Mexico City construction companies, who he writes are also financially supporting the demonstrations in other ways in return for promises by the PRD that they will get building contracts.
John Ackerman: One of the arguments the PRD did offer for the full recount is the high number of null votes and evidence from the partial recounts that have been conducted that many of these were actually for López Obrador. This is part of the second prong of the challenge which puts into question the election as a whole and calls for a full recount.
I haven't seen Carlos Ramirez's charges, but this sounds extremely unlikely.
_______________________
Queretaro, Mexico: 1. Isn't it unfair to compare the 1988 elections to today's situation? After all, in 1988, the IFE did not exist and votes were counted by the Secretaría de Gobernación. 2. Why is it important that Calderón accept a full recount? This decision is not made based on political negotiation, but by the Electoral Tribunal. 3. Isn't it true that the questionable practices that López Obrador provided evidence for are the basis for the partial recount ordered by the court of those voting places? What evidence is there that there was fraud in the rest of them?
John Ackerman: Good questions. The institutional conditions are indeed very different between 1988 and 2006, and this should have assured an un questionable election. Unfortunately, the present IFE councilors were not appointed by consensus (the PRD was excluded) and they have been less than entirely free of suspicion in the way they have acted.
And if they decide to burn the ballots after the electoral process is over in order to prevent citizens from conducting their own recount we will be right back in 1988.
Calderón is the one who would gain the most from a full recount. This is perhaps the only way he will be able to come in with significant legitimacy to manage Mexico's government.
Once again, you don't have to accept the accusations of fraud to support the idea of a full recount. The full recount is needed precisely so that we can see whether there was fraud or not. The central issue is the transparency of the election.
_______________________
Marquette, Mich.: López Obrador has refused to label himself a populist, but to what extent do he and his supporters fit into the growing movement across Latin America that has seen the election of presidential candidates such as Chavez and Morales?
John Ackerman: The support for López Obrador is definitely parallel to the support for other leftist presidents throughout Latin America (not just Chavez and Morales, but also Vasquez, Lula, Bachelet and Kirchner) in so far as it reflects widespread frustration with the failure of the economic reforms of the past two decades.
But López Obrador is an extremely pragmatic politician. The fact that he believes in the welfare state and things that U.S. citizens take for granted like unemployment insurance and public education does not make him a "danger" for the U.S. or Mexico. Indeed, such policies may be exactly what Mexico needs to stop the tide of emigration to the United States.
_______________________
Marquette, Mich.: If Calderón is declared the winner, does he plan to continue the existing neoliberal policies? And if López Obrador wins, do you imagine a sharp departure from Mexico's current economic policies (specifically in relation to the United States)?
John Ackerman: Calderón has expressed a clear message of continuity with Fox's policies. He will continue along the same line.
López Obrador would not make a radical break and is not at all "anti-U.S.". He is just a pragmatist who believes in the importance of social justice. No radical break, but definitely important changes.
_______________________
Elma, N.Y.: Does López Obrador have sufficient evidence of miscounted votes to call into question the close election victory of his opponent? And is the evidence strong enough to challenge the fairness of the election laws which significantly restrict when you can call for a recount?
John Ackerman: I think so. There is a reasonable doubt about the election results. Enough to justify a full recount. The Mexican constitution, electoral law and the court's jurisprudence would all permit such an action. It is simply incorrect to say that a full recount would be illegal.
_______________________
Washington, D.C.: Does the inability of protesters to create hysteria, if that's the case, basically mean a resolution is approaching? Is their a point when the PRD controlled Mexico City tell Obrador to pack up his tent and go home?
John Ackerman: These next few days will be absolutely crucial. The partial recount began today and must finish before this Sunday. I doubt the Mexico City government will step in, but the federal government has been threatening to do so.
_______________________
Oaxaca, Mexico: The city of Oaxaca de Juarez is under the control of a group demanding the removal of the governor of Oaxaca state. They also control the state television and radio stations and many government offices. Do you see a tie-in between this movement and AMLO's? What possibility do you see for a general uprising of the poor in Mexico?
John Ackerman: Don't see any direct connection between the situation in Oaxaca and AMLO, although both situations reveal the failings of the present governments (state and federal) to satisfy the basic demands of the poor.
Don't think there will be anything like a "revolution", but discontent may indeed spread if the economy doesn't start to pick up.
_______________________
Greeley, Colo.: The democratic formula is 50 % + 1. In the Mexican presidential elections, None of the candidates reached that percentage. How can they even discuss who the winner of the election is when there are no clear indications how they can govern. Shouldn't they form a coalition with other political parties-forces in order to govern?
John Ackerman: Yes. This whole situation reveals the urgent need to reform the electoral and state structures in Mexico. The country definitely needs run-off elections as well as possibly a move towards a pseudo-parliamentary form of government.
_______________________
Tucson, Ariz.: How would an upset by López Obrador affect foreign-owned property in Mexico? Would he try to create a "Mexico for Mexicans" kind of country where property was repossessed by the state?
John Ackerman: No. Not at all. He is definitely in favor of foreign investment and the free market. His top economic adviser, Rogelio Ramírez de la O., is a serious, pragmatic guy. No worries here.
_______________________
Pedro, Chihuahua, Mexico: Do you expect serious irregularities to be found in the recount?
John Ackerman: It is quite likely that the margin between Calderón and AMLO will become much smaller.
_______________________
Burke, Va.: What is your prediction of what will happen if the partial recount is held and there is no change?
John Ackerman: Calderón would be quickly and quietly confirmed by the Electoral Tribunal and AMLO would try to lead a nationwide social movement against neoliberalism.
Hopefully, the IFE would also allow the "citizen recount" to take place. This would help allot to shed light on the election and calm the political situation.
_______________________
Oaxaca, Mexico: Thank you for this discussion. What is your opinion of the involvement of Elba Esther Gordillo in the electoral process? Have you seen the allegations that she diverted educational funds for pro PAN campaigning?
John Ackerman: Very worrisome. Elba Ester Gordillo's (old guard PRIsta union leader) participation is the dark side of the Calderón campaign. If there were serious irregularities they most likely can be attributed to her.
_______________________
New York, N.Y.: Professor Ackerman, The Fox administration had a difficult time passing structural reforms in a divided congress. Regardless of the winner, do you expect the narrow margin to erode an already weak presidential mandate?
John Ackerman: Definitely.
_______________________
Tucson, Ariz.: I understand from friends in Sonora, the north Mexican state south of Arizona, that the same U.S. political group which was instrumental in gaining the election of Bush through various shenanigans, lost votes, uncounted votes, shortages of ballots, etc was also involved in Calderon's win. Is this true?
John Ackerman: I have heard this as well, but don't have any solid sources. All the more reason for a full recount, so as to make sure this didn't happen.
_______________________
Takoma Park, Md.: On July 3, the IFE said that it had counted 99% of the vote. On July 4, it admitted that it had been unable to include 2.5 million votes (roughly 6%). Is there an innocent explanation for this? I sure can't think of one.
John Ackerman: Well, supposedly the parties all new about the "archivo de inconsistencias", but the IFE should have announced this publicly. The fact that they didn't and falsely declared that 99% of the votes had been counted definitely created widespread suspicion.
_______________________
Mexico: Professor Ackerman, I'm studying here in Mexico City. It seems to me that AMLO is the victim of a stolen election. It's obvious that his opponents didn't want him to run and tried T prevent it. Then they tried to link him with Hugo Chavez. This "leftist" as the American press refers to him has massive popular support. Most news sources here are slanted to the right and only seem to report on how disruptive the protest is. If the election is handed to Calderón, I think a revolution is quite possible. Do you agree?
John Ackerman: Definitely don't think a revolution will occur, but if the Tribunal simply rubber stamps the IFE results Calderón will definitely have an extremely difficult time governing.
_______________________
Berlin, Germany: Isn't a complete recount in either way inevitable? In case the outcome doesn't change and Calderón is declared winner AMLO probably won't simply give in but raise pressure on the streets until a full recount will be held. On the other hand, if Calderón will loose the partial recount wouldn't it be logical for him to call for a complete recount?
John Ackerman: A full recount would definitely be in the interests of both candidates and for Mexico as a whole. As you point out, if Calderón turned out to come out behind after this partial recount he would be the first to call for an expansion of the recount!
_______________________
West Orange, N.J.: Assuming that a full recount yields a variance in the total tally greater than the spread between the candidates, aren't both likely to call for new elections? Would this be a two-way run-off? Who would benefit most from votes won by PRI in the original ballot? To what extend are blank or mutilated ballots a factor? Does Mexico's congress have the power to pick a winner in a disputed contest?
John Ackerman: A new election is a very possible scenario. This would not be a two-way run-off, but a competition between all parties if they offered candidates (unless of course electoral law were reformed in the meantime).
There are indeed lots of null votes in this election. Enough to make the difference if a recount were conducted.
The Mexican Congress has no power over the elections. Although if the election were thrown out it would be responsible for naming an interim president.
_______________________
Atlanta, Ga.: One of the points made by the Electoral Tribunal judges in explaining their Saturday ruling on the partial recount is that in the vast majority of polling stations they ordered recounted, the main problem was that the number of recorded votes exceeded the number of recorded voters. The judges then further clarified that the polling officials from IFE had all the authority they needed to recount when there was such clear evidence of simple arithmetic errors. In a tense situation which depends so heavily on trust by parties and voters, why do you think the IFE so clearly (in the view of the judges) fell down on the job by refusing to recount in those thousands and thousands of stations? Did they not realize that by not recounting where there were obvious, obvious errors that they would sow distrust?
John Ackerman: Yes, this was a major mistake of the IFE and did sow wider suspicion about their behavior.
_______________________
Ceci Connolly: I'd like to thank John Ackerman for giving us an hour of his valuable time today. We apologize that not every question could be answered. For more on this never-ending election, tune in to Campaign Conexion http://blog.washingtonpost.com/mexicovotes/. Thanks again!
_______________________
Saturday, August 19, 2006
RECOUNTS PROVED FRAUD IN PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS
DOWNLOadews from original available at http://s5.quicksharing.com/v/1148315/Recount_Finds_Fraud_in_Mexican_Election.doc.html
Background
Election
The July 2nd Mexican presidential election has been hotly disputed on the Net, in the courts, and upon streets. Preliminary results were broadcast live to the Internet allowing for unprecedented analysis that showed immediate statistical problems.[1] Subsequent vote tallies showed even more widespread irregularities and discrepancies.
Of 117,287 polling places, 72,197 sites reported tally sheets that did not add up. These errors throw into dispute 62% of the vote. Some polling sites reported more votes than ballots resulting in the addition of 898,862 votes. Other sites reported fewer votes than ballots eliminating 722,326 votes. As a result, the electoral system could not account for a total of 1,621,188 votes.
The difference between the two candidates—Felipe Calderón of the PAN and López Obrador of the PRD—was only 243,000 votes or 0.58% of the tally. Consequently, the tally-sheet irregularities and polling discrepancies were more than enough to throw the election.
Aftermath
Although there was an immediate demand for a recount, the opposition resisted and the electoral system dragged its feet. As a result the PRD prosecuted its case in the courts, before the media, and upon the streets with non-violent demonstrations.[2]
These demonstrations have been the largest and longest lived in Mexico's history. The marches in Mexico City alone have had upwards of 2.4 million people occupying the central two-kilometer core of the city and stretching down the main city avenue—La Reforma—for over ten kilometers.[3]
The protestors then camped out, paralyzing the capital. Almost a month later, tens of thousands still occupy the central core and the most important arteries of the city. The current encampment runs from the central plaza, or Zócalo, down the Avenida Reforma to the Fountain of Petroleos on the Periférico beltway. On the Avenida Hidalgo, it encompasses the downtown central park, of La Alameda and runs down Hidalgo to the Zócalo in a swath flanked by Francisco and Madero.[4]
These crowds and their candidate have demanded a full recount of the 62% of the polling places showing irregularities. The opposition has been adamant that no recount was necessary. The Electoral Tribunal has been slow to act for either party. It has refused to certify the election, but must do so by September 6th. Last week, it agreed to a partial recount, but it was unwilling to recount more than 9% of the polling places.
Today, the nation hangs at a chaotic inflection point. The Electoral Tribunal reported the results of its limited recount. Police fired tear gas at opposition-party senators and then shoved and beat them in front of the Chamber of Deputies.[5]
Recount finds Fraud
The Upper Chamber of the Electoral Tribunal—a division of Mexican Department of Justice—has concluded its recount of 9% of polling places from the July 2nd presidential election. This recount proves that in this election there was organized, systematic, and massive fraud. The recount has found hundreds of thousands of votes that were introduced or subtracted illegally in the voting boxes as well as thousands of falsified tallies. This fraud changed the real results of the citizens' vote and has led to a usurpation and frustration of the popular will.
Five results
First result
Goal
The Tribunal had one central aim when it ordered a review of one in seven of the 72,197 disputed polling places. It sought to determine whether the discrepancies found in the tally sheets were either
A) The result of arithmetic errors fixable by the recount itself or
B) The result of serious irregularities that could not be dismissed
The recount has found that a majority of the tally-sheet problems are not arithmetic. They result from either the introduction or subtraction of votes. In Mexico, the verb for ballot stuffing is se taquearon, as ballots are stuffed like a taco. The verb for robbing votes is the same as in the USA, se robaron
Findings
Stuffing—The review has found that 58,056 votes were introduced illegally or stuffed. Specifically, the recount found that, in 3,873 polling places (or 33%), there was an average of 5 votes too many per site.
Robbing—The review has also found that 61,688 votes were illegitimately subtracted or robbed. Specifically, the recount found that, in 3,659 polling places (or 31%), there was an average of 5.2 votes missing per site.
Fraud—Thus, the total number of polling places where votes were illegally added or subtracted sums to 7,532 (or 65%), and the total number of altered votes is 119,744.
Results
These findings undermine the election. The recount confirms and quantifies problems that it cannot repair. The Tribunal cannot count robbed votes. It also cannot identify which ballots were stuffed and which were legitimately cast by citizens. All stuffed ballots were printed by the Federal Electoral Institute (IFE).
Thus, if the Tribunal is to act impartially to cleanse the election, it must annul results from polling sites that have grave and irreparable irregularities. These irregularities put in question the fairness and impartiality of the process as well as erase any certainty about the reported tallies for candidates.
Article number 75 of Mexico's election law—la Ley General del Sistema de Medios de Impugnación en Materia Electoral—states that polling places will be nullified when “(k) there exists grave irregularities, plainly witnessed and not repairable, during the election or in the counting and tallying of votes, that are evident, put in doubt the certainty of the vote, and are determinative for the results of the vote.”[6]
Second result
The review has also found injurious falsification during the counting of ballot boxes. Numbers were reported for thousands of ballot boxes that bear no relationship to the will of the electorate. Although there might have been errors in the count, it is not these problems that modify the results.
The recount found variations in the data of 81% of the ballot-box counts. The votes obtained by López Obrador show practically no variation. Hence he would only lose 43 votes out of all the recounted boxes. In contrast, Felipe Calderón receives on paper 13,335 votes that never existed in 4,969 polling places (43% of the sites reviewed). On average, he was given 1.14 extra and illegitimate votes per site. The PAN has tried to dismiss these additions as “comprehensible human error,” but these errors only went one way. Felipe Calderón benefitted over López Obrador by more than 31 thousand per cent.[7] This asymmetry is proof of massive and deliberate falsification.
Third result
The review has found that sealed electoral packages have been opened and tampered with after the district tallies. In practically all of the districts reviewed, the Tribunal found tens of thousands of packages without seals. It also found hundreds of thousands of envelopes containing the electoral vote with broken seals or without witness signatures. In addition, it also found electoral packages that were disappeared. These results show that there was illegal manipulation of the packages, the envelopes, and the electoral ballots before, during, and after the district tally.
Fourth result
The Electoral Tribunal had to order a new and partial tally because the General Counsel of the IFE and the District Counsels were remiss in the accomplishment of their legal obligations and abused their authority. Specifically, these functionaries of the IFE violated the Constitution of the Republic as well as with the Federal Code of Electoral Procedures. They broke or failed to apply these laws with premeditation, treachery, and to gain advantage for the party in power. Their goal was to cover the evident defrauding and manipulation of the electoral process.
presidential election
The Electoral Tribunal has conducted a limited recount that is insufficient for guaranteeing the results of the presidential election. Hence it has failed to fulfill the legal requirement of Article 41 of the Mexican Constitution. Nevertheless, its recount provides a well-documented sample population that can be used to extrapolate nationally. These extrapolations show the magnitude of the fraud.
At a national level, Felipe Calderón gained 651,538 fraudulent votes at polling places. He also had another 149,653 votes added through falsified box tallies. In contrast, López Obrador had 692,299 votes eliminated illegally. If these irregularities are corrected, Andrés Manuel López Obrador wins the July 2nd election by nearly 1.5 million votes.
These results show that the popular will, as expressed in ballot boxes, has so far been usurped. The demand for full recount is sensible, legal, possible, and necessary. This demand has been expressed by the majority of the people of México. They demand that the presidential election be cleaned up vote by vote and poll by poll.
This popular demand has now received new legal support from the Electoral Tribunal recount. We hope that the Electoral Tribunal is up to the next challenge. It must resolve the problem of fraud in accordance with our Constitution and laws. The people of México deserve to know the truth and deserve a legitimately elected president.
May the citizen's will be respected!
May the election be cleansed!
Vote by vote and poll by poll!
We will not accept the imposition of a spurious president!
Long live passive civil resistance!
Coalition for the Good of All
México City, D. F. 15th of August, 2006.
[1] See http://em.fis.unam.mx/~mochan/elecciones/
[2] See http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/11/opinion/11lopezobrador.html as well as http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdP86OWRPoQ or http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8WPSaKoeuFM
[3] The mobilization of Sunday 7/30 had crowd estimates ranging from a high of 3 million to a low of 180 thousand by the Federal Police. Although the AP press reported 2 million, the Mexico City police estimated 2.4 million. Images in the We Are Many PowerPoint support the higher estimates.
[4] For a map of the central city, see http://www.allaboutmexicocity.com/histcentermap.htm or http://www.mapquest.com/maps/map.adp?formtype=address&addtohistory=&address=&city=Mexico%20City&state=Mexico&zipcode=&country=MX&location=z3iCh0EKn0UAmU%2fiQEdsy1AVr9XmjydWWB%2bxu8MxtMpbF%2bSxY1khJqJYJJR5x66cPl0Jkhdd%2bgEL91E5b5xXDzjhyLMg1QziNeoNR7Gddmg%3d&ambiguity=1
[5] See videos at http://www.eluniversal.com.mx/graficos/a/videos_amlo/videos-sanlazaro.htm#
[6] Las causales de nulidad de casillas: “k) Existir irregularidades graves, plenamente acreditadas y no reparables durante la jornada electoral o en las actas de escrutinio y cómputo que, en forma evidente, pongan en duda la certeza de la votación y sean determinantes para el resultado de la misma.”
[7] This percentage does not include votes withdrawn by the Tribunal.
Background
Election
The July 2nd Mexican presidential election has been hotly disputed on the Net, in the courts, and upon streets. Preliminary results were broadcast live to the Internet allowing for unprecedented analysis that showed immediate statistical problems.[1] Subsequent vote tallies showed even more widespread irregularities and discrepancies.
Of 117,287 polling places, 72,197 sites reported tally sheets that did not add up. These errors throw into dispute 62% of the vote. Some polling sites reported more votes than ballots resulting in the addition of 898,862 votes. Other sites reported fewer votes than ballots eliminating 722,326 votes. As a result, the electoral system could not account for a total of 1,621,188 votes.
The difference between the two candidates—Felipe Calderón of the PAN and López Obrador of the PRD—was only 243,000 votes or 0.58% of the tally. Consequently, the tally-sheet irregularities and polling discrepancies were more than enough to throw the election.
Aftermath
Although there was an immediate demand for a recount, the opposition resisted and the electoral system dragged its feet. As a result the PRD prosecuted its case in the courts, before the media, and upon the streets with non-violent demonstrations.[2]
These demonstrations have been the largest and longest lived in Mexico's history. The marches in Mexico City alone have had upwards of 2.4 million people occupying the central two-kilometer core of the city and stretching down the main city avenue—La Reforma—for over ten kilometers.[3]
The protestors then camped out, paralyzing the capital. Almost a month later, tens of thousands still occupy the central core and the most important arteries of the city. The current encampment runs from the central plaza, or Zócalo, down the Avenida Reforma to the Fountain of Petroleos on the Periférico beltway. On the Avenida Hidalgo, it encompasses the downtown central park, of La Alameda and runs down Hidalgo to the Zócalo in a swath flanked by Francisco and Madero.[4]
These crowds and their candidate have demanded a full recount of the 62% of the polling places showing irregularities. The opposition has been adamant that no recount was necessary. The Electoral Tribunal has been slow to act for either party. It has refused to certify the election, but must do so by September 6th. Last week, it agreed to a partial recount, but it was unwilling to recount more than 9% of the polling places.
Today, the nation hangs at a chaotic inflection point. The Electoral Tribunal reported the results of its limited recount. Police fired tear gas at opposition-party senators and then shoved and beat them in front of the Chamber of Deputies.[5]
Recount finds Fraud
The Upper Chamber of the Electoral Tribunal—a division of Mexican Department of Justice—has concluded its recount of 9% of polling places from the July 2nd presidential election. This recount proves that in this election there was organized, systematic, and massive fraud. The recount has found hundreds of thousands of votes that were introduced or subtracted illegally in the voting boxes as well as thousands of falsified tallies. This fraud changed the real results of the citizens' vote and has led to a usurpation and frustration of the popular will.
Five results
First result
Goal
The Tribunal had one central aim when it ordered a review of one in seven of the 72,197 disputed polling places. It sought to determine whether the discrepancies found in the tally sheets were either
A) The result of arithmetic errors fixable by the recount itself or
B) The result of serious irregularities that could not be dismissed
The recount has found that a majority of the tally-sheet problems are not arithmetic. They result from either the introduction or subtraction of votes. In Mexico, the verb for ballot stuffing is se taquearon, as ballots are stuffed like a taco. The verb for robbing votes is the same as in the USA, se robaron
Findings
Stuffing—The review has found that 58,056 votes were introduced illegally or stuffed. Specifically, the recount found that, in 3,873 polling places (or 33%), there was an average of 5 votes too many per site.
Robbing—The review has also found that 61,688 votes were illegitimately subtracted or robbed. Specifically, the recount found that, in 3,659 polling places (or 31%), there was an average of 5.2 votes missing per site.
Fraud—Thus, the total number of polling places where votes were illegally added or subtracted sums to 7,532 (or 65%), and the total number of altered votes is 119,744.
Results
These findings undermine the election. The recount confirms and quantifies problems that it cannot repair. The Tribunal cannot count robbed votes. It also cannot identify which ballots were stuffed and which were legitimately cast by citizens. All stuffed ballots were printed by the Federal Electoral Institute (IFE).
Thus, if the Tribunal is to act impartially to cleanse the election, it must annul results from polling sites that have grave and irreparable irregularities. These irregularities put in question the fairness and impartiality of the process as well as erase any certainty about the reported tallies for candidates.
Article number 75 of Mexico's election law—la Ley General del Sistema de Medios de Impugnación en Materia Electoral—states that polling places will be nullified when “(k) there exists grave irregularities, plainly witnessed and not repairable, during the election or in the counting and tallying of votes, that are evident, put in doubt the certainty of the vote, and are determinative for the results of the vote.”[6]
Second result
The review has also found injurious falsification during the counting of ballot boxes. Numbers were reported for thousands of ballot boxes that bear no relationship to the will of the electorate. Although there might have been errors in the count, it is not these problems that modify the results.
The recount found variations in the data of 81% of the ballot-box counts. The votes obtained by López Obrador show practically no variation. Hence he would only lose 43 votes out of all the recounted boxes. In contrast, Felipe Calderón receives on paper 13,335 votes that never existed in 4,969 polling places (43% of the sites reviewed). On average, he was given 1.14 extra and illegitimate votes per site. The PAN has tried to dismiss these additions as “comprehensible human error,” but these errors only went one way. Felipe Calderón benefitted over López Obrador by more than 31 thousand per cent.[7] This asymmetry is proof of massive and deliberate falsification.
Third result
The review has found that sealed electoral packages have been opened and tampered with after the district tallies. In practically all of the districts reviewed, the Tribunal found tens of thousands of packages without seals. It also found hundreds of thousands of envelopes containing the electoral vote with broken seals or without witness signatures. In addition, it also found electoral packages that were disappeared. These results show that there was illegal manipulation of the packages, the envelopes, and the electoral ballots before, during, and after the district tally.
Fourth result
The Electoral Tribunal had to order a new and partial tally because the General Counsel of the IFE and the District Counsels were remiss in the accomplishment of their legal obligations and abused their authority. Specifically, these functionaries of the IFE violated the Constitution of the Republic as well as with the Federal Code of Electoral Procedures. They broke or failed to apply these laws with premeditation, treachery, and to gain advantage for the party in power. Their goal was to cover the evident defrauding and manipulation of the electoral process.
presidential election
The Electoral Tribunal has conducted a limited recount that is insufficient for guaranteeing the results of the presidential election. Hence it has failed to fulfill the legal requirement of Article 41 of the Mexican Constitution. Nevertheless, its recount provides a well-documented sample population that can be used to extrapolate nationally. These extrapolations show the magnitude of the fraud.
At a national level, Felipe Calderón gained 651,538 fraudulent votes at polling places. He also had another 149,653 votes added through falsified box tallies. In contrast, López Obrador had 692,299 votes eliminated illegally. If these irregularities are corrected, Andrés Manuel López Obrador wins the July 2nd election by nearly 1.5 million votes.
These results show that the popular will, as expressed in ballot boxes, has so far been usurped. The demand for full recount is sensible, legal, possible, and necessary. This demand has been expressed by the majority of the people of México. They demand that the presidential election be cleaned up vote by vote and poll by poll.
This popular demand has now received new legal support from the Electoral Tribunal recount. We hope that the Electoral Tribunal is up to the next challenge. It must resolve the problem of fraud in accordance with our Constitution and laws. The people of México deserve to know the truth and deserve a legitimately elected president.
May the citizen's will be respected!
May the election be cleansed!
Vote by vote and poll by poll!
We will not accept the imposition of a spurious president!
Long live passive civil resistance!
Coalition for the Good of All
México City, D. F. 15th of August, 2006.
[1] See http://em.fis.unam.mx/~mochan/elecciones/
[2] See http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/11/opinion/11lopezobrador.html as well as http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdP86OWRPoQ or http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8WPSaKoeuFM
[3] The mobilization of Sunday 7/30 had crowd estimates ranging from a high of 3 million to a low of 180 thousand by the Federal Police. Although the AP press reported 2 million, the Mexico City police estimated 2.4 million. Images in the We Are Many PowerPoint support the higher estimates.
[4] For a map of the central city, see http://www.allaboutmexicocity.com/histcentermap.htm or http://www.mapquest.com/maps/map.adp?formtype=address&addtohistory=&address=&city=Mexico%20City&state=Mexico&zipcode=&country=MX&location=z3iCh0EKn0UAmU%2fiQEdsy1AVr9XmjydWWB%2bxu8MxtMpbF%2bSxY1khJqJYJJR5x66cPl0Jkhdd%2bgEL91E5b5xXDzjhyLMg1QziNeoNR7Gddmg%3d&ambiguity=1
[5] See videos at http://www.eluniversal.com.mx/graficos/a/videos_amlo/videos-sanlazaro.htm#
[6] Las causales de nulidad de casillas: “k) Existir irregularidades graves, plenamente acreditadas y no reparables durante la jornada electoral o en las actas de escrutinio y cómputo que, en forma evidente, pongan en duda la certeza de la votación y sean determinantes para el resultado de la misma.”
[7] This percentage does not include votes withdrawn by the Tribunal.
'People power' is a global brand owned by AmericaThe US and the western media back protests over controversialelections when it suits them, but are si
(Mark Almond is a history lecturer at Oriel College, Oxford)
Tuesday August 15, 2006The Guardian A couple of years ago television, radio and print media in the westjust couldn't get enough of "people power". In quick succession, fromGeorgia's rose revolution in November 2003, via Ukraine's orange revolution a year later, to the tulip revolution in Kyrgyzstan and thecedar revolution in Lebanon, 24-hour news channels kept us up to datewith democracy on a roll.Triggered by allegations of election fraud, the dominoes toppled. The US secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, was happy with the trend:"They're doing it in many different corners of the world, places asvaried as Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan and, on the other hand, Lebanon ...And so this is a hopeful time."But when a million Mexicans try to jump on the people-power bandwagon,crying foul about the July 2 presidential elections, when protestersstage a vigil in the centre of the capital that continues to this day, they meet a deafening silence in the global media. Despite Mexico'slong tradition of electoral fraud and polls suggesting that AndrésManuel López Obrador - a critic of the North American Free TradeAgreement (Nafta) - was ahead, the media accepted the wafer-thin majority gained by the ruling party nominee, Harvard graduate FelipeCalderón.Although Mexico's election authorities rejected López Obrador's demandfor all 42m ballots to be recounted, the partial recount of 9% indicated numerous irregularities. But no echo of indignation haswafted to the streets of Mexico City from western capitals.Maybe Israel's intervention in Lebanon grabbed all the attention andrequired every hack and videophone. Back in 2004 CNN and the BBC were perfectly able to cover the battle for Falluja and the orangerevolution in the same bulletins. Today, however, even a news junkielike me cannot remember a mainstream BBC bulletin live from among themassive crowds in Mexico City. Faced by CNN's indifference to the growing crisis in Mexico, only a retread of an old saying will do:"Pity poor Mexico, so far from Israel, so close to the United States."Castro's failing health gets more airtime than the constitutional crisis gripping America's southern neighbour, which is one of itsmajor oil suppliers. Apparently, crowds of protesters squatting inMexico City for weeks protesting against alleged vote-rigging don'tmake a good news story. Occasionally commentators who celebrated Ukrainians blocking the main thoroughfares of Kiev condescend to jeerat Mexico's sore losers and complain that businessmen are missingdeadlines because dead-enders with nothing better to do are holding upthe traffic. Ukraine's Viktor Yushchenko was decisive when he declared himself president, but isn't López Obrador a demagogue for doing thesame?The colour-coded revolutionaries of the former Soviet Union had apro-western agenda - such as bringing Georgia and Ukraine into Nato and the EU - but in Latin America radicals question the wisdom ofmembership of US-led bodies such as Nafta and the WTO. The crude truthis that Washington cannot afford to let Mexico's vast oil reservesfall into hands of a president even half as radical as Venezuela's Hugo Chávez.But didn't the western observers certify the Mexican polls as "fair",while they condemned the Ukrainian elections? True, but electionobservers are not objective scientists. The EU relies on politicians, not automatons, to evaluate polls. Take the head of its observermission, the MEP José Ignacio Salafranca: as a Spanish speaker inMexico, Salafranca had a huge advantage over many of the MEPs inUkraine who draped themselves in orange even while en mission - but he is hardly neutral. His rightwing Popular party is an ally ofCalderón's Pan party, which is in power in Mexico. Calderón wasimmediately congratulated by Salafranca's colleague AntonioLópez-Istúriz on the "great news". The days of leftwing fraternalism may be over, but the globalist righthas its own network, linking the Spanish conservatives, AmericanRepublicans and Calderón's Pan party - and they provided the keyobserver. To paraphrase Stalin: "It doesn't matter who votes, it matters who observes the vote."Salafranca has a track record as an election observer. In Lebanon'sgeneral elections in 2005 he had no problem with the pro-westernfaction sweeping the board around Beirut with fewer than a quarter of voters taking part and nine of its seats gained without even a tokenalternative candidate. "It is a feast of democracy," he declared. Hismood changed when the democratic banquet moved to areas dominated by Hizbullah or the Christian maverick General Aoun. Suddenly,"vote-buying" and the need for "fundamental reform" popped up in theEU observation reports.Unanimity on the scale seen across Lebanon suggests that the cedar revolution - despite the hype - did nothing to promote real democraticpluralism. Hizbullah's hold on the south is the most controversialaspect of the sectarian segmentation of Lebanese society, buteverywhere local bosses dominate their fiefdoms as before. Similarly, more scepticism about Ukraine's revolution would have left peoplebetter informed than the orange boosterism that passed for commentary18 months ago.But Mexico is different because it is so under-reported. The cruel reality is that "people power" has become a global brand. But like somany global brands it is owned by Americans. Mexicans and any other"populists" who try to copy it should beware that they're infringing a copyright. No matter how many protesters swarm through Mexico City orhow long they protest, it is George Bush and co who decide whichpeople truly represent The People. People power turns out to be aboutpolitics, not arithmetic. · Mark Almond is a history lecturer at Oriel College, Oxfordmpalmond@aol.comhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1844573,00.html __._,_.___
Tuesday August 15, 2006The Guardian A couple of years ago television, radio and print media in the westjust couldn't get enough of "people power". In quick succession, fromGeorgia's rose revolution in November 2003, via Ukraine's orange revolution a year later, to the tulip revolution in Kyrgyzstan and thecedar revolution in Lebanon, 24-hour news channels kept us up to datewith democracy on a roll.Triggered by allegations of election fraud, the dominoes toppled. The US secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, was happy with the trend:"They're doing it in many different corners of the world, places asvaried as Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan and, on the other hand, Lebanon ...And so this is a hopeful time."But when a million Mexicans try to jump on the people-power bandwagon,crying foul about the July 2 presidential elections, when protestersstage a vigil in the centre of the capital that continues to this day, they meet a deafening silence in the global media. Despite Mexico'slong tradition of electoral fraud and polls suggesting that AndrésManuel López Obrador - a critic of the North American Free TradeAgreement (Nafta) - was ahead, the media accepted the wafer-thin majority gained by the ruling party nominee, Harvard graduate FelipeCalderón.Although Mexico's election authorities rejected López Obrador's demandfor all 42m ballots to be recounted, the partial recount of 9% indicated numerous irregularities. But no echo of indignation haswafted to the streets of Mexico City from western capitals.Maybe Israel's intervention in Lebanon grabbed all the attention andrequired every hack and videophone. Back in 2004 CNN and the BBC were perfectly able to cover the battle for Falluja and the orangerevolution in the same bulletins. Today, however, even a news junkielike me cannot remember a mainstream BBC bulletin live from among themassive crowds in Mexico City. Faced by CNN's indifference to the growing crisis in Mexico, only a retread of an old saying will do:"Pity poor Mexico, so far from Israel, so close to the United States."Castro's failing health gets more airtime than the constitutional crisis gripping America's southern neighbour, which is one of itsmajor oil suppliers. Apparently, crowds of protesters squatting inMexico City for weeks protesting against alleged vote-rigging don'tmake a good news story. Occasionally commentators who celebrated Ukrainians blocking the main thoroughfares of Kiev condescend to jeerat Mexico's sore losers and complain that businessmen are missingdeadlines because dead-enders with nothing better to do are holding upthe traffic. Ukraine's Viktor Yushchenko was decisive when he declared himself president, but isn't López Obrador a demagogue for doing thesame?The colour-coded revolutionaries of the former Soviet Union had apro-western agenda - such as bringing Georgia and Ukraine into Nato and the EU - but in Latin America radicals question the wisdom ofmembership of US-led bodies such as Nafta and the WTO. The crude truthis that Washington cannot afford to let Mexico's vast oil reservesfall into hands of a president even half as radical as Venezuela's Hugo Chávez.But didn't the western observers certify the Mexican polls as "fair",while they condemned the Ukrainian elections? True, but electionobservers are not objective scientists. The EU relies on politicians, not automatons, to evaluate polls. Take the head of its observermission, the MEP José Ignacio Salafranca: as a Spanish speaker inMexico, Salafranca had a huge advantage over many of the MEPs inUkraine who draped themselves in orange even while en mission - but he is hardly neutral. His rightwing Popular party is an ally ofCalderón's Pan party, which is in power in Mexico. Calderón wasimmediately congratulated by Salafranca's colleague AntonioLópez-Istúriz on the "great news". The days of leftwing fraternalism may be over, but the globalist righthas its own network, linking the Spanish conservatives, AmericanRepublicans and Calderón's Pan party - and they provided the keyobserver. To paraphrase Stalin: "It doesn't matter who votes, it matters who observes the vote."Salafranca has a track record as an election observer. In Lebanon'sgeneral elections in 2005 he had no problem with the pro-westernfaction sweeping the board around Beirut with fewer than a quarter of voters taking part and nine of its seats gained without even a tokenalternative candidate. "It is a feast of democracy," he declared. Hismood changed when the democratic banquet moved to areas dominated by Hizbullah or the Christian maverick General Aoun. Suddenly,"vote-buying" and the need for "fundamental reform" popped up in theEU observation reports.Unanimity on the scale seen across Lebanon suggests that the cedar revolution - despite the hype - did nothing to promote real democraticpluralism. Hizbullah's hold on the south is the most controversialaspect of the sectarian segmentation of Lebanese society, buteverywhere local bosses dominate their fiefdoms as before. Similarly, more scepticism about Ukraine's revolution would have left peoplebetter informed than the orange boosterism that passed for commentary18 months ago.But Mexico is different because it is so under-reported. The cruel reality is that "people power" has become a global brand. But like somany global brands it is owned by Americans. Mexicans and any other"populists" who try to copy it should beware that they're infringing a copyright. No matter how many protesters swarm through Mexico City orhow long they protest, it is George Bush and co who decide whichpeople truly represent The People. People power turns out to be aboutpolitics, not arithmetic. · Mark Almond is a history lecturer at Oriel College, Oxfordmpalmond@aol.comhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1844573,00.html __._,_.___
Friday, August 18, 2006
Election Fraud in Mexico: NY Times balks again
OpEdNews.com
Original Article at http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_kenneth__060815_election_fraud_in_me.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
August 15, 2006
Election Fraud in Mexico: NY Times balks again
By Kenneth Anderson
Election rigging has been a stolid feature of so-called democracies for a long time. But it has been rather recently that recognition and acknowledgement of the practice has become scant, unless, of course, the people doing the rigging are not part of the acceptable establishment. We saw Democrats laughed at in 2000 for claiming such a thing, so in 2004, they didn't; too afraid to be called names by the GOP machine. Meanwhile Republicans -- who actually conducted the worst of the rigging -- audaciously, though spottily, projected accusations of election fraud onto the hapless Dems. If I lived on the Moon and had watched this from afar, I would have been laughing myself. But there was nothing funny about either the sad sight of the sorry Democrats being slapped senseless or the bellicose and wholly contemptible players of the GOP in the charade that we still insist on calling an "election."
Despite the corporate media's inability to recognise election fraud here, it was easily spotted elsewhere when being conducted by unseemly regimes friendly toward Russia. We saw the Bush administration and the US media's haughty disregard of the Ukraine elections in 2004; exit polls were amiss, clearly there was a problem. US diplomats, led by Colin Powell, bewailed the vile practice of election fraud when it was the Russian-friendly incumbent Prime Minister Yanukovich who had been doing the rigging.
Reports then indicated that thugs loyal to Yanukovich had beaten Ukraine voters at the polls and US diplomatic remonstration was severe, but in Egypt -- an ally in the War on Terra -- where much worse took place as state police actually shot and killed voters and barracaded polling stations, Condoleezza Rice meekly admonished these shameful activities. But since those actions were directed at the party of the Muslim Brotherhood, well, no declarations about election fraud ensued. Of course, the Ukraine election result was recalled, the Egyptian one stood.
But our media in this country cannot and will not attempt the slightest investigation into wrongdoings in US elections. And there is a vast body of evidence pointing to election fraud in each of the elections in 2000, 2002, and 2004. But from the US media, barely a word. When it is reported, disclaimers that such activities could not possibly have affected the outcome are invariably attached. Local reporting in Ohio in 2004 was excellent, with Fitrakis and Wasserman leading the charge, but on the national level, the vast array of manipulations was buried. The reasons, no doubt, are as varied as they are weak-minded or, possibly, just plain dangerous. Ultimately, the establishment cannot allow or cannot admit that election fraud is a serious problem in American. This is, after all, the vanguard of democracy, or at least, that is what we like to tell ourselves, despite the fact that half or more of the population rarely bothers to vote. Elections in America are mythical and pure, never mind what actually happens. In reality, clean elections in the United States are purely mythical. The media, either consciously or not, sees to it that this myth must endure. Local reports of yet more egregious electoral behaviour will certainly be on order this November, only to be strenuously ignored and downplayed again; ahh, those loopy moonbats.
Today, the New York Times offers yet another excellent example of just how the media treats election fraud when those claiming it are not of the proper pursuasion.
Mexican Leftist Remains Defiant
declaimed the Times. The implication is redolent with derision. Leftists are surely bad enough, but Mexican Leftists? Can there be a worse kind? And naturally such loons are "defiant"; they're always complaining about something.
And that was just the headline. Indeed, sifting through the ponderous he said/she said article couldn't have been a bigger waste of time, unless one is curious as to how the Times can publish an lengthy article on the Mexican election dispute and not tell the reader one single fact surrounding the nature of the dispute until the second to last paragraph, when we suddenly learn a rather disturbing thing:
in about 3,000 polling places examined during the partial recount there were nearly 46,000 more ballots cast for president than had been delivered to poll workers before the election. In another 4,300 polling places ... 80,000 ballots delivered to the polls were unaccounted for or missing.
But that is it as far as the Times is concerned. Not a word about Choicepoint or the FBI shenanigans in Mexico. Nothing about the millions of ballots found in dumpsters. Zero about Mexico's Federal Electoral Institute (IFE) withholding 3.3 million ballots on election night and, under public pressure, releasing 2.5 million of them, which in turn reduced Calderón's initial margin from 377,000 to 257,000. Certainly nothing about the putative "winner" Calderón's brother-in-law and that his company, Hildebrando, was a partner in the "design" of the election tabulation software. Vote shaving? nada. Statistical improbabilities? nope.
But what did the Times do when the completed partial recount demonstrate the need for a full recount and that this would assuredly result in a win for Obrador? Bury the numbers. Fortunately, there are a few outlets that won't do that:
In 3,074 precincts (29 percent of those recounted), 45,890 illegal votes, above the number of voters who cast ballots in each polling place, were found stuffed inside the ballot boxes (an average of 15 for each of these precincts, primarily in strongholds of the National Action Party, known as the PAN, of President Vicente Fox and his candidate, Felipe Calderón).
In 4,368 precincts (41 percent of those recounted), 80,392 ballots of citizens who did vote are missing (an average of 18 votes in each of these precincts).
Together, these 7,442 precincts contain about 70 percent of the ballots recounted. The total amount of ballots either stolen or forged adds up to 126,282 votes altered.
If the recount results of these 10,679 precincts (8.2 percent of the nation's 130,000 polling places) are projected nationwide, it would mean that more than 1.5 million votes were either stolen or stuffed in an election that the first official count claimed was won by Calderon by only 243,000 votes.
The evidence of election fraud is concrete, the numbers unassailable, and now government forces have decided that enough is enough and have begun to shoot protesters -- teachers -- in the street (something you also won't read about in the Times). Indeed, Mexico is very much looking like the Ukraine of 2004, but not to the American media this time. This time the fraud was perpetrated by the establishment's own, one of the chosen ones. The Bush administration has blessed the number of the count when clearly there are serious problems with those numbers, probably worse than was seen in Ukraine. But Calderón would be a good son to the corporate interests that wanted him President. He wasn't going to upset things, renegotiate NAFTA as Obrador had promised. And the New York Times, once again, appears more than happy to scoff at the facts and tow the party line, the party line that says only "they" rig elections.
Fortunately, Mexicans appear to be far more invested in their own democracy that Americans in theirs. They also appear to be far better informed about their own elections, too. Perhaps they still have a media that hasn't bailed on the ideal democracy. They are fighting the obvious fraud but this time, it isn't the Ukraine. Look for no help from the Bush administration. Calderón is a "friendly" and not some crazed "leftist" upsetting the "business climate" by trying to help the poor.
Authors Bio: An astronomer who has worked on a number of NASA projects, Ken lives in Baltimore, where he devotes his scientific training to observations and inferences about current affairs, politics and the media. He authors Anything They Say and The Bonehead Compendium.
Back to Article
Original Article at http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_kenneth__060815_election_fraud_in_me.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
August 15, 2006
Election Fraud in Mexico: NY Times balks again
By Kenneth Anderson
Election rigging has been a stolid feature of so-called democracies for a long time. But it has been rather recently that recognition and acknowledgement of the practice has become scant, unless, of course, the people doing the rigging are not part of the acceptable establishment. We saw Democrats laughed at in 2000 for claiming such a thing, so in 2004, they didn't; too afraid to be called names by the GOP machine. Meanwhile Republicans -- who actually conducted the worst of the rigging -- audaciously, though spottily, projected accusations of election fraud onto the hapless Dems. If I lived on the Moon and had watched this from afar, I would have been laughing myself. But there was nothing funny about either the sad sight of the sorry Democrats being slapped senseless or the bellicose and wholly contemptible players of the GOP in the charade that we still insist on calling an "election."
Despite the corporate media's inability to recognise election fraud here, it was easily spotted elsewhere when being conducted by unseemly regimes friendly toward Russia. We saw the Bush administration and the US media's haughty disregard of the Ukraine elections in 2004; exit polls were amiss, clearly there was a problem. US diplomats, led by Colin Powell, bewailed the vile practice of election fraud when it was the Russian-friendly incumbent Prime Minister Yanukovich who had been doing the rigging.
Reports then indicated that thugs loyal to Yanukovich had beaten Ukraine voters at the polls and US diplomatic remonstration was severe, but in Egypt -- an ally in the War on Terra -- where much worse took place as state police actually shot and killed voters and barracaded polling stations, Condoleezza Rice meekly admonished these shameful activities. But since those actions were directed at the party of the Muslim Brotherhood, well, no declarations about election fraud ensued. Of course, the Ukraine election result was recalled, the Egyptian one stood.
But our media in this country cannot and will not attempt the slightest investigation into wrongdoings in US elections. And there is a vast body of evidence pointing to election fraud in each of the elections in 2000, 2002, and 2004. But from the US media, barely a word. When it is reported, disclaimers that such activities could not possibly have affected the outcome are invariably attached. Local reporting in Ohio in 2004 was excellent, with Fitrakis and Wasserman leading the charge, but on the national level, the vast array of manipulations was buried. The reasons, no doubt, are as varied as they are weak-minded or, possibly, just plain dangerous. Ultimately, the establishment cannot allow or cannot admit that election fraud is a serious problem in American. This is, after all, the vanguard of democracy, or at least, that is what we like to tell ourselves, despite the fact that half or more of the population rarely bothers to vote. Elections in America are mythical and pure, never mind what actually happens. In reality, clean elections in the United States are purely mythical. The media, either consciously or not, sees to it that this myth must endure. Local reports of yet more egregious electoral behaviour will certainly be on order this November, only to be strenuously ignored and downplayed again; ahh, those loopy moonbats.
Today, the New York Times offers yet another excellent example of just how the media treats election fraud when those claiming it are not of the proper pursuasion.
Mexican Leftist Remains Defiant
declaimed the Times. The implication is redolent with derision. Leftists are surely bad enough, but Mexican Leftists? Can there be a worse kind? And naturally such loons are "defiant"; they're always complaining about something.
And that was just the headline. Indeed, sifting through the ponderous he said/she said article couldn't have been a bigger waste of time, unless one is curious as to how the Times can publish an lengthy article on the Mexican election dispute and not tell the reader one single fact surrounding the nature of the dispute until the second to last paragraph, when we suddenly learn a rather disturbing thing:
in about 3,000 polling places examined during the partial recount there were nearly 46,000 more ballots cast for president than had been delivered to poll workers before the election. In another 4,300 polling places ... 80,000 ballots delivered to the polls were unaccounted for or missing.
But that is it as far as the Times is concerned. Not a word about Choicepoint or the FBI shenanigans in Mexico. Nothing about the millions of ballots found in dumpsters. Zero about Mexico's Federal Electoral Institute (IFE) withholding 3.3 million ballots on election night and, under public pressure, releasing 2.5 million of them, which in turn reduced Calderón's initial margin from 377,000 to 257,000. Certainly nothing about the putative "winner" Calderón's brother-in-law and that his company, Hildebrando, was a partner in the "design" of the election tabulation software. Vote shaving? nada. Statistical improbabilities? nope.
But what did the Times do when the completed partial recount demonstrate the need for a full recount and that this would assuredly result in a win for Obrador? Bury the numbers. Fortunately, there are a few outlets that won't do that:
In 3,074 precincts (29 percent of those recounted), 45,890 illegal votes, above the number of voters who cast ballots in each polling place, were found stuffed inside the ballot boxes (an average of 15 for each of these precincts, primarily in strongholds of the National Action Party, known as the PAN, of President Vicente Fox and his candidate, Felipe Calderón).
In 4,368 precincts (41 percent of those recounted), 80,392 ballots of citizens who did vote are missing (an average of 18 votes in each of these precincts).
Together, these 7,442 precincts contain about 70 percent of the ballots recounted. The total amount of ballots either stolen or forged adds up to 126,282 votes altered.
If the recount results of these 10,679 precincts (8.2 percent of the nation's 130,000 polling places) are projected nationwide, it would mean that more than 1.5 million votes were either stolen or stuffed in an election that the first official count claimed was won by Calderon by only 243,000 votes.
The evidence of election fraud is concrete, the numbers unassailable, and now government forces have decided that enough is enough and have begun to shoot protesters -- teachers -- in the street (something you also won't read about in the Times). Indeed, Mexico is very much looking like the Ukraine of 2004, but not to the American media this time. This time the fraud was perpetrated by the establishment's own, one of the chosen ones. The Bush administration has blessed the number of the count when clearly there are serious problems with those numbers, probably worse than was seen in Ukraine. But Calderón would be a good son to the corporate interests that wanted him President. He wasn't going to upset things, renegotiate NAFTA as Obrador had promised. And the New York Times, once again, appears more than happy to scoff at the facts and tow the party line, the party line that says only "they" rig elections.
Fortunately, Mexicans appear to be far more invested in their own democracy that Americans in theirs. They also appear to be far better informed about their own elections, too. Perhaps they still have a media that hasn't bailed on the ideal democracy. They are fighting the obvious fraud but this time, it isn't the Ukraine. Look for no help from the Bush administration. Calderón is a "friendly" and not some crazed "leftist" upsetting the "business climate" by trying to help the poor.
Authors Bio: An astronomer who has worked on a number of NASA projects, Ken lives in Baltimore, where he devotes his scientific training to observations and inferences about current affairs, politics and the media. He authors Anything They Say and The Bonehead Compendium.
Back to Article
BMD´s: Babies of Mass Destruction?
OpEdNews.com
Original Article at http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_edgar_po_060816_bmd_b4s_3a_babies_of_mas.htm
August 16, 2006
BMD´s: Babies of Mass Destruction?
By Edgar Pope
You will have to excuse my skepticism, and that of the many who have already pointed out the convenient timing of this, the latest "terror" threat. Enjoying a new low in popularity, George Bush, with Air Force One as a backdrop, seems just pleased as punch to "remind" us that we are in constant danger, and will be for a "long time". We should understand by this, of course, that he is our only hope for preserving a lifestyle that everyone else in the world wishes they had but can't because they aren't American (never questioning of course whether people elsewhere are really all that interested in hootenannies and weekends spent at shooting ranges or in paramilitary training).
One wonders, though, How will they ever top the moral indignation they are currently attempting to engender through the rhetoric of "Muslim fascism" and images of mothers willing to blow up their own babies? Has the Right arrived at some sort of endgame?
I, for one, get the sense that people are tiring of the "Christian fascist" talking heads. Even people that I know used to sit for hours transfixed by the whiney drone of Bill O´Reilly don't seem to take it all so seriously anymore. I try to refrain from saying, "I told you so," although of course they see it in my face when they, tentatively, complain about him, or (who says there is no God?) change channels mid sentence.
By contrast to the United States, where the Right has had its day and seems to be winding down, conservatism is only just now beginning to show its real face in Mexico. Politics there have been, until recently, relatively tranquil. The business-as-usual of buying and selling influence and elections has gone on for years, of course, but conducted with a kind of old-fashioned gentlemen's understanding-you let me rob the people here and I won't say anything when you rob them there.
But recently, partisan extremism has arrived in Mexico, too, undoubtedly under the influence of The American Experience up north, and, along with it, the inflammatory rhetoric and blatant hypocrisy that characterize today's political theater. I say theater, of course, because surely only the purest of heart, those most in denial, or the just plain stupid can any longer believe or pretend that such a thing as democracy, and its necessary corollary, public protest, exist anywhere, except perhaps in Europe.
In Mexico, the ruling party, known by its initials, PAN, just robbed the presidential election. Nothing new, right? Well, no, but still interesting. Because in the previous presidential election (2000) the ruling party actually lost. Indeed, it was the PAN itself, who, under Vicente Fox, fought assiduously for years against the previous ruling party, the PRI, first in state elections and then nationally. Promising change for the Mexican people, the PAN finally toppled the PRI. And Fox's victory was a change in that sense. It showed that the unthinkable-beating a ruling party in an election-was indeed possible in Mexico. But now that the PAN is the ruling party, its sense of doubt concerning Mexican elections has utterly vanished. An amnesia it has been called. The urgency for change has evaporated. Somehow feelings of outrage and indignation, and the great need for vigilance and suspicion over against the ruling party, has been replaced in PAN rhetoric by, almost incredulously, the need to respect institutions! In six years, we are supposed to believe, Mexico has been transformed into a model of democracy. The truth is, not surprisingly, that it has not. Instead, democracy has suffered the same fate there that it has been dealt here in the United States: it has morphed into a gleaming Right Wing fetish, a mere simulation of itself that is used to justify falsified elections, and the invasion of foreign sovereign states like Iraq (and Cuba and Iran?). And, as one reads over and over again on t-shirts, banners, and signs at López Obrador rallies, Fox himself, and the PAN, all the while accusing López Obrador of being a danger to Mexico, have themselves become traitors to Mexican democracy.
In spite of the PAN's slogan, "The Party of Change", things in Mexico have not changed in Fox's six years in office. Ordinary people are still ignored or worse, while Mexico's ruling elite and transnational companies prosper. Meanwhile, many Mexicans, still without the jobs that were sure to come to Mexico under the modern, "pro-business" regime introduced by Fox, are still forced to seek work in the United States. And now, Mexico's poor increasingly risk their lives by facing America's rising vigilante population at the border. To top it off, the PRI, previously PAN's great enemy (due, according to the PAN itself, to any number of unspeakable crimes committed against Mexico), is now its ally. Politics makes for strange bedfellows, they say. Indeed, the PRI even sold PAN votes to insure that the PAN candidate "won" the 2006 elections. A tape-recorded phone message catching one such transaction has been played repeatedly in Mexico since the election. And now, in Chiapas, the PAN has formed a coalition with the PRI, and the PAN candidate has withdrawn from an upcoming gubernatorial election there in order to help the PRI candidate win! All to stop the threat of a government, like that proposed by López Obrador, that might actually side with the people instead of corporate interests. The PRI, meanwhile, in a typically hypocritical and cynical effort to buy votes (so much for the sanctity of democracy), is handing out trinkets to the elderly-the same elderly, who according to the logic of the Right, should not be depending on the government to survive (shame on the elderly in Chiapas for not yet investing their retirement funds in the stock market).
And along came Andrés Manuel López Obrador, former mayor of Mexico City and the friend of ordinary people. Well, already we can see his great crime. Friend of ordinary people?! Nothing like a little social justice to ruin a party. "For the good of all, but first the Poor"? Where does someone like that get off running for the presidency of a country? Well, you can just see the Right Wing foaming at the mouth. The rhetoric bursts forth (how could it be contained?): "Communist". "A danger to Mexico". Those wishing to be a little less transparent, like the Washington Post, navigate the semantic field more subtly: they call López Obrador "an ardent populist with a messianic touch", "charismatic". But the intent is clear: to instill a fear of López Obrador. And their cynicism is unbounded when they callously transform the movement of millions of Mexicans hoping for a responsive government into "the ambitions of one man"! Ah, the pen IS mightier than the sword. Imagine erasing so many people in one sentence.
Events, of course, and in spite of anyone's illusions of agency, necessarily unfold according to their own logic. Once challenged, for instance, the violence intrinsic to the Right's philosophy of throwing everyone to the slings and arrows of economic forces inevitably erupts. The gleaming surfaces of the buildings along the Paseo de la Reforma cannot contain it. Vicente Fox's thugs (aka the Mexican Military, the Special Preventive Police, and various other groups whose only function is to protect the government from the people), have already beaten and wounded elected representatives of the Mexican Congress when they attempted to establish protests in front of the legislative buildings. And now, tanks and water canons have been deployed to insure that Fox's sixth and final State of the Union address is not marred by dissent. In that address, undoubtedly, he will pretend that there is no crisis in Mexico and that the millions of Mexicans who see him as a traitor do not exist.
Fox and friends, ironically, have been complaining that López Obrador's popular demonstrations in Mexico City have been bad for the tourist industry. They complain that streets have been blocked. Does Fox not ask himself what sort of image is portrayed by the deployment of tanks in the capital? And when Fox blocks street, apparently, it is to help traffic? Or do Fox and friends really believe that tourists will feel safer knowing that Mexico City has been militarized? The frightening thing is, the PAN might actually believe that.
We should all be enormously grateful to Mexico these days: to Andrés Manuel López Obrador, to his millions of supporters, to the Asamblea Popular del Pueblo de Oaxaca. These brave souls are doing what many of us would like to do, but do not have sufficient conviction to do. They are fighting the machine. More importantly, they are forcing its viciousness to the surface for all to look at. And they are pushing the Right further to the edge, and, inevitably, right over the edge. The day is coming when we can finally say "Adios" to the likes of Bush, Fox, and Blair and to the hate industries that support them.
Then perhaps we will all have a few years in which to live in relative peace until the next bunch of fear peddlers comes along.
Authors Bio: Edgar Pope is an artist, musician, writer who is old enough to remember when the world really was, or at least seemed, a kinder and gentler place.
Back to Article
http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/print_friendly.php?p=opedne_edgar_po_060816_bmd_b4s_3a_babies_of_mas.htm
Original Article at http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_edgar_po_060816_bmd_b4s_3a_babies_of_mas.htm
August 16, 2006
BMD´s: Babies of Mass Destruction?
By Edgar Pope
You will have to excuse my skepticism, and that of the many who have already pointed out the convenient timing of this, the latest "terror" threat. Enjoying a new low in popularity, George Bush, with Air Force One as a backdrop, seems just pleased as punch to "remind" us that we are in constant danger, and will be for a "long time". We should understand by this, of course, that he is our only hope for preserving a lifestyle that everyone else in the world wishes they had but can't because they aren't American (never questioning of course whether people elsewhere are really all that interested in hootenannies and weekends spent at shooting ranges or in paramilitary training).
One wonders, though, How will they ever top the moral indignation they are currently attempting to engender through the rhetoric of "Muslim fascism" and images of mothers willing to blow up their own babies? Has the Right arrived at some sort of endgame?
I, for one, get the sense that people are tiring of the "Christian fascist" talking heads. Even people that I know used to sit for hours transfixed by the whiney drone of Bill O´Reilly don't seem to take it all so seriously anymore. I try to refrain from saying, "I told you so," although of course they see it in my face when they, tentatively, complain about him, or (who says there is no God?) change channels mid sentence.
By contrast to the United States, where the Right has had its day and seems to be winding down, conservatism is only just now beginning to show its real face in Mexico. Politics there have been, until recently, relatively tranquil. The business-as-usual of buying and selling influence and elections has gone on for years, of course, but conducted with a kind of old-fashioned gentlemen's understanding-you let me rob the people here and I won't say anything when you rob them there.
But recently, partisan extremism has arrived in Mexico, too, undoubtedly under the influence of The American Experience up north, and, along with it, the inflammatory rhetoric and blatant hypocrisy that characterize today's political theater. I say theater, of course, because surely only the purest of heart, those most in denial, or the just plain stupid can any longer believe or pretend that such a thing as democracy, and its necessary corollary, public protest, exist anywhere, except perhaps in Europe.
In Mexico, the ruling party, known by its initials, PAN, just robbed the presidential election. Nothing new, right? Well, no, but still interesting. Because in the previous presidential election (2000) the ruling party actually lost. Indeed, it was the PAN itself, who, under Vicente Fox, fought assiduously for years against the previous ruling party, the PRI, first in state elections and then nationally. Promising change for the Mexican people, the PAN finally toppled the PRI. And Fox's victory was a change in that sense. It showed that the unthinkable-beating a ruling party in an election-was indeed possible in Mexico. But now that the PAN is the ruling party, its sense of doubt concerning Mexican elections has utterly vanished. An amnesia it has been called. The urgency for change has evaporated. Somehow feelings of outrage and indignation, and the great need for vigilance and suspicion over against the ruling party, has been replaced in PAN rhetoric by, almost incredulously, the need to respect institutions! In six years, we are supposed to believe, Mexico has been transformed into a model of democracy. The truth is, not surprisingly, that it has not. Instead, democracy has suffered the same fate there that it has been dealt here in the United States: it has morphed into a gleaming Right Wing fetish, a mere simulation of itself that is used to justify falsified elections, and the invasion of foreign sovereign states like Iraq (and Cuba and Iran?). And, as one reads over and over again on t-shirts, banners, and signs at López Obrador rallies, Fox himself, and the PAN, all the while accusing López Obrador of being a danger to Mexico, have themselves become traitors to Mexican democracy.
In spite of the PAN's slogan, "The Party of Change", things in Mexico have not changed in Fox's six years in office. Ordinary people are still ignored or worse, while Mexico's ruling elite and transnational companies prosper. Meanwhile, many Mexicans, still without the jobs that were sure to come to Mexico under the modern, "pro-business" regime introduced by Fox, are still forced to seek work in the United States. And now, Mexico's poor increasingly risk their lives by facing America's rising vigilante population at the border. To top it off, the PRI, previously PAN's great enemy (due, according to the PAN itself, to any number of unspeakable crimes committed against Mexico), is now its ally. Politics makes for strange bedfellows, they say. Indeed, the PRI even sold PAN votes to insure that the PAN candidate "won" the 2006 elections. A tape-recorded phone message catching one such transaction has been played repeatedly in Mexico since the election. And now, in Chiapas, the PAN has formed a coalition with the PRI, and the PAN candidate has withdrawn from an upcoming gubernatorial election there in order to help the PRI candidate win! All to stop the threat of a government, like that proposed by López Obrador, that might actually side with the people instead of corporate interests. The PRI, meanwhile, in a typically hypocritical and cynical effort to buy votes (so much for the sanctity of democracy), is handing out trinkets to the elderly-the same elderly, who according to the logic of the Right, should not be depending on the government to survive (shame on the elderly in Chiapas for not yet investing their retirement funds in the stock market).
And along came Andrés Manuel López Obrador, former mayor of Mexico City and the friend of ordinary people. Well, already we can see his great crime. Friend of ordinary people?! Nothing like a little social justice to ruin a party. "For the good of all, but first the Poor"? Where does someone like that get off running for the presidency of a country? Well, you can just see the Right Wing foaming at the mouth. The rhetoric bursts forth (how could it be contained?): "Communist". "A danger to Mexico". Those wishing to be a little less transparent, like the Washington Post, navigate the semantic field more subtly: they call López Obrador "an ardent populist with a messianic touch", "charismatic". But the intent is clear: to instill a fear of López Obrador. And their cynicism is unbounded when they callously transform the movement of millions of Mexicans hoping for a responsive government into "the ambitions of one man"! Ah, the pen IS mightier than the sword. Imagine erasing so many people in one sentence.
Events, of course, and in spite of anyone's illusions of agency, necessarily unfold according to their own logic. Once challenged, for instance, the violence intrinsic to the Right's philosophy of throwing everyone to the slings and arrows of economic forces inevitably erupts. The gleaming surfaces of the buildings along the Paseo de la Reforma cannot contain it. Vicente Fox's thugs (aka the Mexican Military, the Special Preventive Police, and various other groups whose only function is to protect the government from the people), have already beaten and wounded elected representatives of the Mexican Congress when they attempted to establish protests in front of the legislative buildings. And now, tanks and water canons have been deployed to insure that Fox's sixth and final State of the Union address is not marred by dissent. In that address, undoubtedly, he will pretend that there is no crisis in Mexico and that the millions of Mexicans who see him as a traitor do not exist.
Fox and friends, ironically, have been complaining that López Obrador's popular demonstrations in Mexico City have been bad for the tourist industry. They complain that streets have been blocked. Does Fox not ask himself what sort of image is portrayed by the deployment of tanks in the capital? And when Fox blocks street, apparently, it is to help traffic? Or do Fox and friends really believe that tourists will feel safer knowing that Mexico City has been militarized? The frightening thing is, the PAN might actually believe that.
We should all be enormously grateful to Mexico these days: to Andrés Manuel López Obrador, to his millions of supporters, to the Asamblea Popular del Pueblo de Oaxaca. These brave souls are doing what many of us would like to do, but do not have sufficient conviction to do. They are fighting the machine. More importantly, they are forcing its viciousness to the surface for all to look at. And they are pushing the Right further to the edge, and, inevitably, right over the edge. The day is coming when we can finally say "Adios" to the likes of Bush, Fox, and Blair and to the hate industries that support them.
Then perhaps we will all have a few years in which to live in relative peace until the next bunch of fear peddlers comes along.
Authors Bio: Edgar Pope is an artist, musician, writer who is old enough to remember when the world really was, or at least seemed, a kinder and gentler place.
Back to Article
http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/print_friendly.php?p=opedne_edgar_po_060816_bmd_b4s_3a_babies_of_mas.htm
