Waiting for a winner

Not only has this been fascinating to watch because of the closeness of the vote, as Kofman correctly points out — it is fascinating to see a participatory democracy in action. Those 41 million votes represent about 60 percent of eligible voters in Mexico. I can't think of an election anywhere in recent times with such a high turnout. And, as far as I know, voting is not mandatory in Mexico.

Hi Cathleen,
I live in Mexico, but being an American, I can't vote here.

Voting isn't mandatory in Mexico. I live in a small 6-unit apartment building and every Sunday, all the cars in the parking lot and on the street don't move until 10 or 11:00am. But Sunday the 2nd, each and every car was gone by 8:30am. Everyone had gone to vote. I was quite impressed!

Maybe just maybe - this new President will clean up the corruption and turn the country around. More jobs, decent pay, better housing, medical benefits - basic needs that would keep the nationals from infiltrating this country by the millions. A President who will take responsibility for his people and not expect this country to provide for them would be a long overdue breath of fresh air!!

As an American visiting Mexico who has closely been following this election, it is scary how closely the rhetoric of the right-wing National Action Party of Felipe Calderón resembles that of George Bush. Like George, he excessively used sports analogies in his campaign, as if politics is just another football game. In this strongly Catholic country, he also played on people's religious feelings. He continually trotted out his wife and kids to emphasize that he was a "family" man as opposed to his adversary, López Obrador, who is presently unmarried. He said he had the "brazo fuerte" or strong arm of God on his side. Even the way he appears to have won this election resembles the way Bush won his 2000 election--in an extremely tight race in which he opposed the recount of votes, which Obrador is insisting upon. I am sure the Mexican country club set, which Calderón represents, always counts their bills at the bank at least two or three times. But then, we're talking about money, and here it's just the will of the people!
God help us! Now there's a baby Bush on the other side of the border!

I think that Calderon was a better choice. Obrador is a bit of an anti-American and he even threatened to make big changes in the NAFTA. When Fox entered as president, he started cleansing Mexico from all that poison left by the PRI and its dirty politics. What Mexico needs is continuity. Fox relieved the economic burden a bit and improved the country. Calderon, being from the same party, will contiune Fox's plan but more proactively. I think it will be dangerous to give the Mexican country an abrupt change, and that will happen if the PRD, Obrador, are victors. Besides, the majority of congress is PAN, like Calderon, which will facillitate the continuing positive democratic change in Mexico.

Hi Arthur,
The votes have already been counted one-by-one and as a matter of fact each of the 300 thousand + polling station results have been signed as valid by the PRD (Obrador's) party representatives. The Mexican Federal electoral system (IFE) is far more advanced than in the US (perhaps the best in the world), so the US 2000 election comparison is not quite appropriate. Each polling station in Mexico is staffed by a representative of the IFE as well of representatives of every party in the running. The actual ballots are only touched by a civilian polling station president as well as two civilian "witnesses." The actual ballot count takes place at a "roundtable" where the IFE representatives, witnesses each of the party representatives, and in some cases international observers sit down and reach a consensus, ballot-by-ballot and tally the votes. The results are written in a final tally sheet, signed by each of the parties, and each of the party representatives receive a carbon copy of the tally results to take back to their party headquarters. This is the reason why Calderon knew he had won the election far before the "official" count had been announced and why Lopez Obrador went back home around midnight even when he was ahead, both knew the results well in advance. If the US had such a system Gore would have won the election in 2000 as he should have with non of the ensuing turmoil. What is appalling to me is that no major electoral reform took place in the US (including eliminating the electoral college) and by most accounts the world's superpower has one of the most backward presidential electoral systems in the world.

If this election was clean the precinct results reported would match the precinct results recorded by IFE. If this election was clean IFE would publish all its totals. If this election was clean a manual recount really wouldn't be any problem and Calderon would insist on it to strengthen his mandate.
But it wasn't and anyone who saw PAN & PRI try to disqualify Lopez-Obrador's candidacy and send him to jail, because he didn't get a building permit for a road to a hospital, knew that it wouldn't be a clean election.
It's fascinating to hear people talk about how it would be patriotic for Lopez-Obrador to concede in the interest of national unity. It is not patriotic to concede a stolen election nor is it patriotic to submit to any other form of oppression. Why should Mexicans settle for nothing now when they can settle for nothing later?