Mexican bloggers lead fight against questionable election results

From today's SF Chronicle:

"The fast-moving electoral controversy appears to be driven as much by Lopez Obrador's grassroots supporters as by the candidate himself, and it has illustrated the emerging power of Mexico's bloggers.

On Monday morning, Lopez Obrador had stated meekly in public that he would accept defeat if announced by the Federal Electoral Institute. That appearance, in which his haggard face seemed depressed and defeated, detonated a whirlwind of Internet organizing. Within hours, his supporters had deluged the headquarters of Lopez Obrador's Democratic Revolution Party, or PRD, with e-mails alleging inconsistencies in the vote counting and reporting process.

PRD bloggers furiously gathered allegations about fraud and distributed instructions on how to report problems to the PRD campaign and how to contact the media. By Monday night, Lopez Obrador had emerged again and announced that his party's lawyers would lodge legal appeals with the electoral institute's independent tribunal. He cited several photos of apparently contrasting poll booth count documents that had been sent to him, and he repeatedly asked his followers to keep up the e-mail barrage."

(The rest of the article is available at http://tinyurl.com/...)

If something similar were to happen in the US (perish the thought!), I wonder what the reaction of bloggers here would be.

•  Right on! We need to take a page from Mexico's

  book on this.  They're showing us all how to do it come November when there are suddenly "surprising Republican wins" giving them a larger majority in both houses.  The fix is in, folks, with Diebold fraud machines in over 80% of our polling places and Karl Rove's all ready to steal his third election in less than a decade.  

  They have no intention of giving up any of their power (although it looks pretty moot, when you see how quickly the Bu$h "administration" has responded to the last SCOTUS decision re: Gitmo prisoners), so this election has to lock up Congress and throw away the key.  IMHO, when the November election "shows" (but has no paper trail to prove it) that Rethugs have "won" again, this Congress will give Bu$hCo et al another term, for the "security of the nation" - LOL and then, I cry.

  But I'm voting, manning a polling booth in my neighborhood and I plan to follow in the footsteps of my neighbors south of the border.  We must take to the streets in droves in November and demand that the votes be counted when my dire prediction above comes true.

  by Little Lulu on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 11:36:51 AM PDT

  •  err

    and what if you're wrong? (as in we win)

    by FleetAdmiralJ on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 11:39:39 AM PDT

    •  And What If You're Wrong?

      And what if I'm wrong right along with you?
      What if we are all wrong?
      No, seriously: What if?

      by NewDirection on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 11:42:26 AM PDT

      •  my point

        was that they are stating it as if the fact that fraud occured and will occur is objective fact.

        by FleetAdmiralJ on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 11:49:01 AM PDT

        •  I've read some of those Mexican blogs

          It looks like fairly solid evidence of fraud.

          by litho on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 11:53:33 AM PDT

          •  well

            i meant their statement which suggested that "fraud occured in the US in 2004 and will happen in 2006" is an objective statement.

            I haven't seen the evidence in Mexico so I can't say one way or another on that election, but I believe Mexico has a history of this anyway, so I guess this isn't a shock, though still unfortunate.

            by FleetAdmiralJ on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 11:56:47 AM PDT

            •  I Was Dismissive Of

              Large-scale conspiracy fraud allegations regarding 2004, before it was cool to be dismissive of large-scale conspiracy fraud allegations regarding 2004.

              But I'm interested to know what you or (I would) say, if ever confronted with proof we'd accept of decisive fraud. (Because of course no rational person claims no fraud occurs in national elections, however local, indecisive, and for that matter bipartisan.) Name your standard: 55 peer-reviewed journals; reportage on CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News; whatever.

              by NewDirection on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 12:02:40 PM PDT

              •  i don't know about 55

                but at least something which clearly and convincingly layed out the case, with convincing evidence (either testimony or some type of observational evidence).

                by FleetAdmiralJ on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 12:08:13 PM PDT

                •  Yes...

                  And what then?

                  by NewDirection on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 12:15:14 PM PDT

                  •  well

                    then one has a leg to stand on when accusing them of fraud.  I'd be the first one to say that no relief is possible as far as past elections (and is one of the criticisms I have towards people who scream 2004 fraud at any little possible indication).

                    Of course, what would end up ultimately happening would be forming the electoral system, and one doesn't need to prove fraud to have a good argument for that anyway.

                    by FleetAdmiralJ on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 02:12:39 PM PDT

    •  I'll dance and sing and believe that democracy

      has triumphed over fascism.  And I will be the first to retract all my statements regarding the voter fraud in 2000 and 2004 and my dire predictions for November's election.

      But I believe pigs will sprout wings before Diebold fraud machines show Democrats taking either or both houses of Congress in November.

      by Little Lulu on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 11:54:41 AM PDT

      •  well

        i don't know if I would set taking over congress as the bar.  Even assuming the election were held fraud-free that may still be a toughie, especially in the Senate.

        by FleetAdmiralJ on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 11:57:59 AM PDT

        •  What would you set as the bar? With opinion

          polls, on practically a daily basis, showing a huge majority of Americans unhappy with the Republican leadership in both houses of Congress and when exit polls in November show a huge margin of voters opting for Democrats to take the majority in either or both houses of Congress, why wouldn't it be totally evident that Diebold stole another election if Republicans keep majority control of both houses in November?

          by Little Lulu on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 01:40:07 PM PDT

•  I was just reading an article..

  Election over, suspense remains

  This is going to be a close one....
  Another article says:

  The election body said late Tuesday that 2.6 million votes were excluded from the preliminary count because of such problems  as bad handwriting or extraneous marks on tally sheets attached to ballot boxes. If all those tallies nonetheless proved accurate, Calderon's would shrink to about 0.6 of a percentage point, or about 250,000 votes out of 41 million, it said.

  Mexico's stability at risk in vote count, candidate warns

  This is all really interesting to watch. I was hoping mexico would turn more to the left, its the only way they can enact change for themselves.

  by pale cold on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 11:43:10 AM PDT

  •  I read that, too

    and thought "are there 2.6 blacks in Mexico?"  

    Snark.

    by Bob Love on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 11:50:53 AM PDT

•  Mentioned a few times in a few

  places, but the Los Angeles Times is confirming that AMLO's early observations are correct:

  http://www.latimes.com/...

  The margin between the two leading candidates for president narrowed suddenly Tuesday after election authorities revealed that about 2.5 million votes had been missing from earlier counts. The announcement meant the race between leftist Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador and conservative Felipe Calderon was still too close to call.

  AND:

  An initial count of the ballots gave a slim but apparently insurmountable lead to Calderon. On Monday evening, Calderon was leading Lopez Obrador by 402,708 votes, with 98.45% of polling stations "processed," according to official reports.

  But election authorities acknowledged Tuesday that the preliminary count did not include vote totals from more than 11,000 stations where "irregularities" were noted in official paperwork. Those stations were listed as "processed" in the official reports, but their votes were not included in the tally.

  Late Tuesday, election officials added the 2.5 million votes to the public count. Lopez Obrador outpolled Calderon on these ballots by more than 145,000 votes, narrowing Calderon's lead to slightly more than 257,000 ballots, or 0.6 percentage point.

  Election authorities said that as many as 900,000 votes remained to be added to the official tally because polling station results had not yet arrived at regional election headquarters. An undetermined number are from the remotest rural areas of southern Mexico, which lean toward Lopez Obrador.

  AND:

  At a news conference Tuesday, leaders of the PRD repeated and elaborated on Lopez Obrador's charges of irregularities in the preliminary count.

  Campaign chief Ortega said results from 13,086 polling stations — slightly more 10% of the total — were not included in the initial count released by election officials.

  Party leaders said results from many stations in the states of Jalisco, Sonora and Guanajuato, strongholds of Calderon's National Action Party, appeared more than once in the preliminary results.

  Cesar Augusto Morones Servin, a pollster hired by the PRD, said fewer votes were counted in the presidential race than in the races for congressional deputies and senators. Mexicans were voting for all three. Blank or "null" ballots are included in the vote total, and all three categories should have had the same number of votes, Morones said.

  All in all, this has FLORIDA / OHIO written all over it. There's some monkey-business going on, with Calderon's early and concrete declaration of winning matching up with the Bushies early clear declaration and then never backing down, even after problem after problem with the count was revealed.  We are watching history repeat for the 3rd time via this strategy, folks. When are we going to stop falling for it?

  by YucatanMan on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 11:48:14 AM PDT

•  Tony Soprano had low self-esteem

  and got a shrink.

  dear diary writer, unless you've got a Tony Soprano problem,  get a new handle.

  by skywriter on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 02:11:18 PM PDT

  •  I think you've been watching too much TV n/t

    by StupidAsshole on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 04:39:04 PM PDT

    •  Actually, I've never seen the Sopranos

      just heard about it.

      Why do you want people to think you are a Stupid Asshole?

      by skywriter on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 07:01:44 PM PDT

      •  Because my thoughts are so brilliant...

        ...and my opinions so dead-on-the-mark, that I thought it would be sporting to give myself a slight handicap--in the form of my moniker--in order to put myself and the rest of you on a more even footing.

        by StupidAsshole on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 07:45:40 PM PDT

        •  oh

          by skywriter on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 10:11:53 AM PDT