BajaNomad

Unsettling comments on election outcome

thebajarunner - 9-9-2006 at 09:33 AM

from today's LATimes.
not good news for Mexico and Baja!!!
stormy days ahead, for sure.

Mexico's Election Doubts May Linger
By Héctor Tobar
Times Staff Writer

September 9, 2006

MEXICO CITY — Top electoral officials and judges are feeding doubts about the outcome of Mexico's presidential vote by declining to release details about a recount of 4 million ballots and by moving quickly to destroy all 41 million ballots, legal experts said Friday.

The seven judges of the Federal Electoral Tribunal declared conservative candidate Felipe Calderon president-elect on Tuesday. But the tribunal's 300-page ruling on the vote left some experts shaking their heads.

John M. Ackerman, a law professor at the National Autonomous University of Mexico, said the judges had made no effort to investigate possible financing improprieties and other charges made by leftist candidate Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador. The ruling also failed to cite any legal precedents in its refusal to have the election annulled, Ackerman said.

The court opened ballot boxes and recounted 4 million votes, but only to determine whether there was evidence of outright fraud — and declared that they had found none. The recount tallies were not released.

"The tribunal is explicitly preventing us from seeing what actually happened in the partial recount," Ackerman said. "The result of all this is that we don't have certainty."

A Federal Electoral Tribunal spokesman said the judges would not comment on the ruling. He said no further information would be released on the recount.

On Thursday, the Federal Electoral Institute, or IFE, which organizes elections, denied a request by Ackerman and others to have access to the ballots.

By law, ballots here are destroyed after an election is certified, but the law does not stipulate when.

Irma Sandoval, director of the National Autonomous University's Laboratory for the Study and Analysis of Corruption and Transparency in Mexico, said the ballot request was made through the fledgling public records act, which grants access to documents not covered by privacy and national security restrictions.

"The IFE denied our request because, they said, the ballots are not documents," Sandoval said. "The ballots are printed by the government. But the IFE said that at the moment a citizen marks the ballot, it's no longer a document. It's a very metaphysical argument."

Writers Elena Poniatowska and Carlos Monsivais, who supported Lopez Obrador's presidential bid, joined the petition seeking access to the ballots.

Sandoval said she and others were considering an appeal to the Supreme Court to keep the IFE from destroying the ballots.

The IFE's rejection of the request led Sandoval to compare this election to 1988, when the outgoing government burned ballots rather than allow a recount that might have proved leftist candidate Cuauhtemoc Card##as' allegations of fraud in his loss to ruling party nominee Carlos Salinas de Gortari.

"All of the reforms we've had since 1988 have been designed to bring the left back into the electoral process, and now the left is on the street," Sandoval said. "If the IFE proceeds with the rushed and premature destruction of the ballots, then the comparisons to 1988 will be more than apt."

Lorenzo Cordova, a law professor at the National Autonomous University, said that although the election was flawed, it was mostly a success. On election day, he said, all of the political parties praised the way the IFE conducted the vote.

"The errors of the IFE were in communication," Cordova said, after the narrow margin between Calderon and Lopez Obrador became clear. "They didn't know how to face a politically delicate situation in the way they released information in the days after the election. They created a lot of doubts."

Cordova said he opposed granting public access to the ballots because there was no guarantee a "citizen recount" would follow established standards. But he said the election had shown the need for new reforms, including improved regulation of the media and private financing of campaigns.

JESSE - 9-9-2006 at 10:11 AM

The election was a success, the only problems have been the constant (and baseless) crying of the PRD, they where so sure that Obrador was going to be president, that they simply cannot accept the fact that they ran an awful campaign and lost.

Skeet/Loreto - 9-9-2006 at 06:39 PM

Lencho: Does it not appear to Mirror the Gore-Bush situtation several years ago?
The Anti-everything movement is going on in many Countries this Day.

JESSE - 9-9-2006 at 08:14 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by lencho
Quote:
Originally posted by JESSE
The election was a success, the only problems have been the constant (and baseless) crying of the PRD, they where so sure that Obrador was going to be president, that they simply cannot accept the fact that they ran an awful campaign and lost.


You may believe that and I may believe that (actually I don't), but the detail is that many people do think this was simply another subtle dedazo under the guise of honest elections and that the people's will was ignored. Whatever the reality of the election process, that belief among a large segment of the population, is a problem, and not very healthy for the country.

--Larry


That belief was planted by Lopez Obrador, wich is why i consider him a traitor to this nation.

Dave - 9-9-2006 at 09:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by JESSE
That belief was planted by Lopez Obrador, wich is why i consider him a traitor to this nation.


He IS a traitor. Question is, what does the government plan to do about it? Apparently, nothing.

He should be arrested, tried, convicted and shot.

(I believe Mexico still allows the death penalty for treason.)

Paula - 9-9-2006 at 09:45 PM

If the election was on the up-and up and the count and partial recount honest and fair, what is the harm in showing the results? I really don't know which outcome would be the best for Mexico, although I do have an opinion. I am certain that a clear, open, honest, and accurate answer to the question of who is really the winner would be the best thing for Mexico and the whole western hemisphere.

Don Alley - 9-9-2006 at 09:47 PM

Maybe the belief was planted by Lopez Obrador.

But the refusal to recount the votes may help those beliefs to grow.

I don't really get it. Maybe because where I vote recounts are required in close elections. But I guess some in both Mexico and the USA prefer the final decision to be made by appointed tribunals, not by ballots cast by the people.

By the way, I think AMLO is a goof and I prefer to see Calderon in office. But the election, or at least the subsequent events, smell fishy to me.

Paula - 9-9-2006 at 10:09 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by lencho
Quote:
Originally posted by Dave
He should be arrested, tried, convicted and shot.


Creating martyrs among the opposition is usually counterproductive. :lol:

--Larry


Excellent point, Larry!

JESSE - 9-10-2006 at 12:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Dave
Quote:
Originally posted by JESSE
That belief was planted by Lopez Obrador, wich is why i consider him a traitor to this nation.


He IS a traitor. Question is, what does the government plan to do about it? Apparently, nothing.

He should be arrested, tried, convicted and shot.

(I believe Mexico still allows the death penalty for treason.)


I think the PAN has actually done a very good job at letting Obrador commit political suicide, the goverment and the military where ready to put this down from the start, but there is no need to unless Obrador resorts to violence.

JESSE - 9-10-2006 at 12:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Paula
If the election was on the up-and up and the count and partial recount honest and fair, what is the harm in showing the results? I really don't know which outcome would be the best for Mexico, although I do have an opinion. I am certain that a clear, open, honest, and accurate answer to the question of who is really the winner would be the best thing for Mexico and the whole western hemisphere.


The results are clear, there is no evidence of fraud, why would i break the law and have another recount, simply because a losing candidate cannot believe he ran such a bad campaign, that he managed to lose a 10 point lead?

The law is clear, the citizen count is the single most accurate and reliable tool for our elections, if we start doing recounts without having any evidence that wrongdoing took place, we would be placing the results of the elections on a small number of people run by a court, in other word, the goverment would take over again. Wich is why these laws where created, to never again leave the results of the elections, in the hands of the goverment.

I would also like to add, that legally, Lopez Obrador didnt even bother to ask the court for a full recount. legally, he only asked for a recount of about 20% of the total ballots,(why would he ask for a full recount in the media, and legally not ask for one?) so the court, actually granted him a recount of 50% of everything he asked for. Its important to mention, that those 137,000 or so ballots that where recounted, where not random, they where picked by Obrador in areas where the PAN vote was very heavy, and still, no major changes took place.

I am completely against accomodating the wishes of people who show no proof, have no facts, and accuse someone of a crime and not even bother to file a formal complaint.

Cypress - 9-10-2006 at 01:06 PM

Jessie pretty much sums it up!

The Madness of Lopez Obrador

MrBillM - 9-10-2006 at 01:32 PM

That's the title of the Sunday Los Angeles Times "Currents" Editorial article regarding the dispute. The author makes the point that, in her opinion, Obrador has embarked on a calculated campaign to make it impossible for Calderon to govern, bringing Mexico to an economic standstill.

Dave's point that he is committing treason is substantiated by Obrador's own statements that he is going to do everything possible to make governing Mexico impossible.

Time will tell whether he can simply be ignored or whether the Federal Government will have to step in and use force to put a stop to his and his supporters activities.

Al G - 9-10-2006 at 04:09 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Skeet/Loreto
Lencho: Does it not appear to Mirror the Gore-Bush situtation several years ago?
The Anti-everything movement is going on in many Countries this Day.

How nice you are Larry, I would have said "give me something for nothing movement"

Jesse

Baja Bernie - 9-10-2006 at 04:26 PM

I sorta decided to stay out of this one BUT I wish you would explain that the Mexican voting system was designed with much help from around the world and it's checks and balances are far superior to those of the United States.

While you are at it why don't you share with the folks just what kind of people control that college and who are those people who are listened to with such concern by the American press.

I guess it is obvious that I agree with you and Dave. The jerk is playing with fire and will only harm those folks who can deal with it the least. Talk about tying Mexico to a third world status just when it appears to be breaking out of the dismal political past.

It is my guess that all of the military types who have gone missing from Baja and I assume other states as well are sitting somewhere outside Mexico city--just a guess.

Paula - 9-10-2006 at 08:39 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Dave
Quote:
Originally posted by JESSE
That belief was planted by Lopez Obrador, wich is why i consider him a traitor to this nation.


He IS a traitor. Question is, what does the government plan to do about it? Apparently, nothing.

He should be arrested, tried, convicted and shot.

(I believe Mexico still allows the death penalty for treason.)


Dave,
Why even bother with a trial if it is a given that he should be convicted and shot? Is there any need for due process if guilt is beyond doubt? Don't you think they should just shoot him?

Paula - 9-10-2006 at 09:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by JESSE
Quote:
Originally posted by Paula
If the election was on the up-and up and the count and partial recount honest and fair, what is the harm in showing the results? I really don't know which outcome would be the best for Mexico, although I do have an opinion. I am certain that a clear, open, honest, and accurate answer to the question of who is really the winner would be the best thing for Mexico and the whole western hemisphere.


The results are clear, there is no evidence of fraud, why would i break the law and have another recount, simply because a losing candidate cannot believe he ran such a bad campaign, that he managed to lose a 10 point lead?


The law is clear, the citizen count is the single most accurate and reliable tool for our elections, if we start doing recounts without having any evidence that wrongdoing took place, we would be placing the results of the elections on a small number of people run by a court, in other word, the goverment would take over again. Wich is why these laws where created, to never again leave the results of the elections, in the hands of the goverment.

I would also like to add, that legally, Lopez Obrador didnt even bother to ask the court for a full recount. legally, he only asked for a recount of about 20% of the total ballots,(why would he ask for a full recount in the media, and legally not ask for one?) so the court, actually granted him a recount of 50% of everything he asked for. Its important to mention, that those 137,000 or so ballots that where recounted, where not random, they where picked by Obrador in areas where the PAN vote was very heavy, and still, no major changes took place.

I am completely against accomodating the wishes of people who show no proof, have no facts, and accuse someone of a crime and not even bother to file a formal complaint.


Jesse, my understanding of Mexican politics is poor, and I really don't know which candidate would make the best president. I think they both have strong and weak points. I don't have a strong sense of the integrity of the Mexican electoral process. I have heard that it is tamper proof, and I have heard otherwise.
It is my understanding that Lopez Obrador still had a lead of several points in the polls going into the election. He lost by the slimmest of margins, one half of one percentage point. I think with a vote this close a recount is reasonable. I think a full and accurate recount in the US elections of 2000 and 2004 would have prevented a lot of agony in this country, whatever the outcome. I am confused about his "media" and "legal" requests. To my understanding he asked for a full recount, as did huge numbers of Mexican citizen supporters of his campaign. It is a commonly held belief that one protestor represents at least 10 people who did not choose to come out. If you multiply the number of Mexicans in the streets following the vote by ten, you must see that a substantial portion of the electorate questions the results. Why not put their concerns to rest if the information is at hand? And if he asked for 20%, why would the judges give him just 10%?
The big question for me is why are the judges so secretive? Certainly their information proving that there was no fraud could only serve to clear up the doubts of so many, and allow the country to move on in unity. Put yourself on the other side for just a minute. If the vote had shown that Lopez Obrador won by the slimmest of margins, wouldn't evidence that showed the count to be accurate help you to accept the unsavory results and hope for the best for your country in spite of your doubts? And wouldn't the refusal to share information at hand reinforce your concerns?

JESSE - 9-11-2006 at 10:01 AM

Paula,

The mexican electoral system is not completely fool proof of course, but it is considered a model to be followed by most modern democracies, and i can't think of any other nations electoral process that has more security and supervision by the citizens than ours. As for Lopez Obrador having a lead of several points before the elections, that wasnt so, several polls showed a dead heat, or even Calderon ahead by a few points, wich means that they where virtually tied, a fact reflected in the election.

I do not support a recount because of this:

1.-Lopez Obrador did not ask for one legally, if he didn't ask for one, is because he knows exactly who won.

2.-The margin of victory-defeat, is very close to the margin of error, wich means, that you can count the votes several times, and in some results Calderon would win, and maybe in others, Obrador would. A recount would solve nothing because technically speaking, a third recount could give the win back to Calderon.

3.-Recounts are legally only allowed if theres evidence of wrongdoing, wich in this case, Obradors side could produce none.



In the US a recount was a legal choice, the judges could have chosen to do a recount if they wanted to, in Mexico the law is clear, there is nothing more legally valuable and important than the citizen count perfomed in election day. In order to put the results of the elections, in the hands of a few thousand federal employees, there needs to be evidence of wrongdoing.


Quote:

The big question for me is why are the judges so secretive?


Paula, there is nothing secretive about the court, who ever said the court is secretive is not informed, in their website, you could follow LIVE video and audio debate of all the debates and the rulings, and 100% of all the rulings are posted with details of why and how did they arrived at their conclusions. I would like to see that in most courts anywhere.
Quote:
Put yourself on the other side for just a minute. If the vote had shown that Lopez Obrador won by the slimmest of margins, wouldn't evidence that showed the count to be accurate help you to accept the unsavory results and hope for the best for your country in spite of your doubts? And wouldn't the refusal to share information at hand reinforce your concerns?


There is no more evidence than the goodwill of 1 million randomly selected of my countrymen, the fact that Obrador was the candidate that spent the most money, the fact that in the same "fraudulent" elections, the PRD managed to score a significant victory in congress and the senate by becoming the second most powerful political force. And the fact that Lopez Obrador couldnt produced any evidence or bother to actually ask the court for a recount.

If i was on the other side, i would be one of those that feel they made a very big mistake by voting for Obrador, and now are reflected in polls that show that if the elections where held today, Calderon would win by a margin of more than 13 points.

JESSE - 9-11-2006 at 10:14 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Baja Bernie
I sorta decided to stay out of this one BUT I wish you would explain that the Mexican voting system was designed with much help from around the world and it's checks and balances are far superior to those of the United States.

While you are at it why don't you share with the folks just what kind of people control that college and who are those people who are listened to with such concern by the American press.

I guess it is obvious that I agree with you and Dave. The jerk is playing with fire and will only harm those folks who can deal with it the least. Talk about tying Mexico to a third world status just when it appears to be breaking out of the dismal political past.

It is my guess that all of the military types who have gone missing from Baja and I assume other states as well are sitting somewhere outside Mexico city--just a guess.


Bernie,

The process is far better than anything in the US, is no wonder the UN uses Mexican IFE advisor a lot when they want to carry on elections around many nations that are coming out of crisis.

The IFE has 8 counselors and 1 president counselor, all picked and voted for by the political parties, all have excelent records and are civilians, none are active members of any party.

In their almost 10 years, the IFE and the counselors have a very balanced recond showing clear imparcaiality towards all parties.

Don Alley - 9-11-2006 at 12:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by morgaine7
In Mexico, a Class War Looms
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060918/ross
Please don't open fire on the messenger (article is fair game).


Re: the Nation article:
Okay, so now I'm even more confused. When I get back to Loreto and we hear from our PRD neighbors, I'll probably get even more confused all over again.

The article ends with talk of assassinations. When we saw amlo in Loreto, he walked right by us, I took this snapshot standing on my chair:



No security!

I'm glad my banks, creditors, utilities etc are better at counting money than people are at counting ballots. Or am I confused about that too?:lol::o:lol:

If Obrador

Hook - 9-11-2006 at 01:49 PM

makes good with his promise to set up a parallel government, what greater act of treason could there be?

Even an attempt on the life of a president would be less of a treasonable charge, IMO.

I wonder if he fancies himself a martyr.............I am thinking so.

JESSE - 9-11-2006 at 01:53 PM

There is one good thing that Lopez Obrador has done, even do i think he should rot in a jail in las islas marias.

He has alerted te political and finacial elites that the times of 50 million poor and 30 billion tycoons is over. If the goverment fails to do something about reducing poverty in the next 6 years, we could see real trouble during the next elections, and a posible comeback for Lopez Obrador.

Oso - 9-11-2006 at 04:39 PM

"After two months of controversy following the Mexican election, the electoral court declared Felipe Calderon as the president of Mexico. Imagine that -- a court having to decide a presidential election. What a backward country that is." --Jay Leno

Jesse

Baja Bernie - 9-11-2006 at 05:57 PM

Ignoring a few of the later posts I must say that when I first met you I was convinced that you had the brains and the honesty to go far in the 'new' Mexico. I feel even stronger about that today!

Perhaps, you could use a gringo historian who cares about the future of Mexico.

No, Jesse! You know I am not full of that bad smelling stuff.