Talk:Mexican general election, 2006

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is a controversial political topic, which may be disputed. Please read the talk page and discuss substantial changes there before making them.
(This message should only be placed on talk pages.)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mexican general election, 2006 article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
Archive
Archives

Contents

[edit] Biased article

The tone and general comments in this article are biased toward Lopez Obrador. At his instant, I cannot make changes (or suggest them here). Please revisit earlier tomorrow.

I don't agree with you. I think that this article is fairly npov, and is also constantly kept up to date. I would just kindly ask you to discuss any proposed changes before actually making them. Hari Seldon 07:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
While I think that the article itself is balanced, the external links section certainly is not. This article ([1]) has the following in the second paragraph:
They will have three major choices: Felipe Calderón of the National Action Party (PAN), the candidate of the governing right, backed by his cohort Fox; Andres Manuel López Obrador, the populist candidate of the Party of the Democratic Revolution (PRD) and known by his initials “AMLO”; and Roberto Madrazo, the candidate of the Institutional Revolutionary Party, the party that governed Mexico for almost seven decades before Fox’s election in 2000.

[edit] Suggesting Elections in Mexico (2006)

Before going any further, wouldn't be easier to make an article called Elections in Mexico (2006) and put in just about every single election held in the country?

  • The articles become more predictable (Elections in Mexico (2003), Elections in Mexico (2002), etc.), starting with a fed. election (if any) and continuing with 5 or 6 state elections in alphabetical order.
  • Just think about it, unless there's a mega fraud or something, most stuff in a state election can be covered in 4 medium paragraphs and a nice looking table. And trust me, we'll have a hard time writing 4 paragraphs for most states.

As of June 2005, most of out state elections arts. are stubs, people link them in the most creative ways (2004 Oaxaca State elections; 2004 Elections in Oaxaca; Election in Oaxaca 2004; Election in Oaxaca, 2004; Election in Oaxaca (2004); (2004) Election in Oaxaca State, etc.) Not to mention the federal ones (2004 Federal Election in Mexico, Mexican federal elections 2005, (2005) presidential election, 2006 Mexican General election, etc.) Ruiz June 30, 2005 00:24 (UTC)

Sounds eminently reasonable. 2006 Mexican elections would match the format of 2005 Mexican elections, 2004 Mexican elections, etc. I was thinking about starting the 2006 one to continue that series, but I have to confess I'm utterly unaware what other elections are slated to take place that year. (Nayarit and EdoMex this weekend, though!)
I was a bit concerned about your trimming off the segundos apellidos this afternoon -- I'd put them all in, even for characters like Calderón who normally don't use theirs. Problem is, there's one or two gents on that list for whom you really can't trim off the 2o: Mtz y Mtz, Medina Plascencia (if he's even still in the race; not sure he is) and, of course, López Obrador. Having some with one surname and others with two -- dunno, struck me as kind of non-neutral, unbalanced. Any thoughts? –Hajor 30 June 2005 01:09 (UTC)

Well, I don't mind the 2nd family name, is just that I tend to side with the "artistic names" when writing articles about Mexican politics (pun intended) for several reasons:

  1. People get way more info on Google (interviews overseas, pics, etc.) using "Felipe Calderón" than "Felipe Calderón Hinojosa".
  2. People not used to the Spanish (or is it Catholic?) naming convention may think, for example, that "Felipe Calderón Hinojosa" is, in fact, "Felipe C. Hinojosa" or "Felipe Hinojosa", which only make things worse.

I don't think is partial per se. Both Mexican and foreign media would publish an article about a meeting between "Andrés Manuel López Obrador" and "Vicente Fox" without abandoning neutrality necessarily, is just the way they are known. Think of Bill Clinton and Jean-Paul Sartre listed in the same article. Unbalanced? not really.

Now, regarding the state elections, I just took a look at your super list. I asume that whoever got in during the year 2000 (such as Fox) will leave the office accordingly: Chiapas, Guanajuato, Morelos and the DF. Coahuila will have elections in Sep. 2005.

Terra has 2 interesting dossiers about Mexican elections (one for 2005 [2] and another one for 2006 [3] (check out the mid column in the last one) Ruiz June 30, 2005 06:21 (UTC)

Your comments on the names are well taken. Artistic names: Andrés Manuel López Obrador and Enrique Martínez y Martínez, but all the others just get Pedro Pérez, then. (I'm going to remove Medina Plascencia, too -- I thought he was in the running, but it seems that died some time in the past, if I didn't hallucinate it.)
The Terra articles are not bad -- they're lacking finalised candidate lists for this weekend's elections (which is kind of pathetic, at this stage in the game), but the section on the presidenciables is concise and accurate. I had forgotten all about Ricardo Monreal... Cheers, –Hajor 30 June 2005 13:27 (UTC)

This section isn't bad either. But anyways, I'll remove Monreal and Natividad since they're no longer in the game:

And just in case: Francisco Labastida changed his mind.

Cheers, Ruiz July 1, 2005 02:46 (UTC)

No arguments from me; I'm just poorly informed. Well done. –Hajor 1 July 2005 12:42 (UTC)

[edit] Castañeda

Apparently he won't be able to run anymore as an independent. See here. I'm a bit late to this debate but I'm all for predictable article names for the elections. By the way, is there any particular reason why there are two articles for the 2006 election? -- Rune Welsh ταλκ 19:23, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Alianzas (Names and logos)

Since some parties have already decided to go in alliance and those alliances have a name we need to came up with an convention about the name in english to use (Or Spanish would be OK???), for instance the Alianza por el bien de todos or the PRI/PVEM alliance...

Also, there is no need to use all logos because once the parties registered the Alliance they start to use one single logo for the campaing... does someone knows were to download those logos... Due to the IFE's tregua it it difficult for me to find official information (on the parties websites) about the alliances...Abögarp 19:23, January 11, 2005 (UTC)

(January 18???) I haven't seen the alliance referred to as anything other then the PRI/PVEM alliance. Perhaps we should refer it as such and then the Spanish name with the rough translation the first time it is mentioned. Then as the PRI/PVEM alliance afterwards. --Vizcarra 00:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
There are two alliances confirmed, the Alianza por el bien de todos (PRD/PT/Convergencia) and the Alianza por Mexico (PRI/PVEM) So i think we need to came up with a convention.... so I have created an area to vote Main discussion here........ Abögarp 00:32, January 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Milenio´s poll is not.

in the polls section, the poll it supossed to be from Milenio is not form Milenio. Actually, It´s a quotation from another poll company called Arcop.(Please read the article you are linking) Arcop is the "official" PAN´s poll maker. So i think it is not correct to say is Milenio´s if is not. (Excuse me my bad english, i´m sorry)

[edit] Removed this from the top

Pollsters have a public webpage with survey results at: www.opinamexico.org

[edit] Are the bars open during elections?

I was in Cabo in 2000 during the presidential elections and all bars were closed for 48hours. Is this the same for 2006?

Yes.

People will often purchase many caguamas "40 ozs" before the ban takes affect and then sell them to the neighbors for 7-8 dollars instead of 1.50 on election day. If you are going to be down there on Election Day, stock up a few days in advance.

Here is an update on the bar situation. The various municipalities now have autonomy in the decision. For the most part those that would lose out on the tourism generated by the 4th of July will allow the bars to open. In Tijuana they will be open.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.143.181.216 (talk • contribs).

[edit] POV: This article is biased against López Obrador

There are several remarks regarding PRD's candidate Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador which sound uncannily like the bad press campaign orchestrated in Mexico by competing PAN. Especially at the bottom (citing Ahumada's declarations an supposed Family attack)

I live in Mexico and I am not aware of any "bad press" campaign, particularly none "orchestrated" by the PAN... I believe that the media has done an excellent job in making this campaign as unbiases as possible, with the NOTABLE exceptions of leftist newspaper "La Jornada" and rightist radio station "Imagen", but in both cases they are not "orchestrated" by anyone, rather they are independent editorial decisions taken by both newsgroups.
In any case, I find this article as one of the best written in Wikipedia precisely because it describes reality most accurately and is lacking almost any personal opinion. The article states (truthfully) that this a competition between two, and the polls are updated frequently and accurately. If anything, as the article stands right now, it anticipates an AMLO victory, which is also what most analysts and polls, included the Reforma polls (which AMLO accused of being "faked").
So, where are the POV issues? Is predicting an AMLO victory with available information "POV towards the PAN"?
By the way, please get a username and sign your comments.
Hari Seldon 15:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Ok. I created an account and logged in. I mean the last paragraph, transcribed verbatim:
Just before the debate, Carlos Ahumada, a businessman jailed for his involvement in a scandal to bribe Mexico City officials while López Obrador was mayor, threatened to release "tapes showing payoffs to other allies of López Obrador". The release was expected to damage the anti-corruption image López Obrador is trying to create for himself. Before the tapes could be released, however, Ahumada's wife and children were attacked in a shooting
The way it is written, especially the "attack" issue (which as today, Jun 21, 2006, hasn't been proven and shows clear signs of a self inflicted attack) suggests that Obrador is a dubious person trying to create an honest image and will not let anything on its way, even if it means shooting people! come, on!. I guess when you talk marvels on the "unbiased" press, that you haven't read "El Reforma" or listened to Oscar Mario Beteta on Radio Formula. I also live in Mexico, and I totally disagree with you on the issue of "unbiased" press. In fact, a respected more-or-less objective editorialist from "El Universal", Raymundo Riva Palacio, has an excellent article on the matter titled Autocritica
--Kovalski 20:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Ok, first of all, thank you for getting an ID and signing.
Now, I agree the section may have a problem, but a section does not constitute the WHOLE article. In general, I think the article is very good.
About the section you mention, I think the solution is simple. This article is not about the Ahumada case, so, just delete it and substitute it with a link to the videoscandals. Maybe just put a sentence or two saying that "before the Debate, Carlos Ahumada's wife threatened to release tapes involving allies of Mr. Lopez Obrador in suspected corruption positions, and the release was cancelled due to an attempted murder which is still under investigation."
I think this wording is accurate and neutral enough. It doesn't directly say that the videos showed AMLO's allies commiting corruption, only that they are suspected (which is true), and it also doesn't say that the attempted murder had any intent, but that it is under investigation (which is also true, the conclusion of the "self-attempt" has only been advanced by the Mexico City government, and considering the political implications of the source, I don't think it would be NPOV to transform a line of investigation from that source into our conclusion in Wikipedia. It is safer to say that it is under investigation, and link to the Videoscandals article page, where such topic can be discussed further.
Again, this article page should not discuss the videoscandal as a main issue. It is simply something that happened and could've affected the election. However, the videoscandals have their own article for its purpose. The videoscandals are not the purpose of this article.
Hari Seldon 06:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Update: I've made the change. Hari Seldon 06:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Don't you think that Ahumada's videos are a minor issue given the overall spectrum of this topic?, ie., if the videoscandals are worth mentioning as well as the empty chair, why not also state the "Desafuero" and all the Federal Government's attempts to block López Obrador from running?, and then also Hildebrando, Atenco ... and any other recent political event in Mexico?

My opinion is that the reference to the videoscandals should be completely ommited. I edited the article, and also changed the name of this entry, to make it a bit more accurate

--Kovalski 22:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
The desafuero is not part of the electoral process. Only detractors of the desafuero see it like that.
On the other hand, it is clear that missing a Presidential Debate, which was organized SPECIFICALLY for the elections, has an effect on the elections.
Also the Ahumada case, it had an effect on the elections, as it happened around the second debate.
About Hildebrando, I think that it should only be menctioned. The article states that AMLO won the debate, maybe we should just add that the winning was done mainly through the Hildebrando accusation.
Hari Seldon 23:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
There's rough consensus in the Mexican press that the desafuero fiasco was a heavy-handed attempt to prevent AMLO from running in this election. In any case, most of the issues related to the election should have a passing mention in this article, since their own articles should focus on extended discussion. The empty chair incident has to be mentioned here, since it marked the point where AMLO lost his lead in the polls. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 13:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I detect no "bias" in this article. 66.81.22.85 21:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
I bet $20 that PRI will "win" this election.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jj frap (talk • contribs).
I'll take your bet! Hari Seldon 15:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I bet $20 that neither of you will ever be able to collect your winnings.--mitrebox 22:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Winner

I've seen vandalism all over the internet now, including Wikipedia. Yesterday (Thursday June 29), the wikipedia sites of Felipe Calderon, Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, and Vicente Fox where vandalized proclaiming AMLO the winner of the election to take place on Sunday July 2.

Since the election is clear to be very close, I suggest that we as wikipedians try to prevent declaring a winner before the IFE does so. The official winner will be announced on Wednesday, so I think that the following conditions of valid editing to proclaim the winner should be met before declaring a winner in wikipedia:

1) If all seeminly losing candidates accept their defeat, then we can proclaim a winner. 2) If the IFE declares a winner on July 2 at night with more than 2% of difference and more than 90% of the ballots counted, then we can proclaim a winner. 3) If none of the above is met, then we should wait until Wednesday until the IFE proclaims an official winner.

What do you think?

Hari Seldon 15:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I say we do the sensible thing and wait until IFE makes an official statement. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 12:49, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Agreed 100%. The wiki is not a crystal ball; and so when both the IFE and AP say it's too close to call, we shouldn't be calling it here. Jon 13:39, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Runoff?

There should be something in the article saying whether a candidate needs a plurality or majority to win ie will there be a runoff if no candidate wins over 50% of the vote? Homey 03:38, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Given that results will soon be declared, I think it should then become obvious from the results described in teh article. No runoff will happen. Only a plurality is needed. —Cuiviénen 04:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I came to the article looking for precisely that information (it looks like the results won't be released till Wednesday). I've added the fact that there is no runoff to the article. Homey 05:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Currently, Univision reports that Calderon holds less than a three-point lead, but only with 28 or so percent of the votes tallied. So, no clear winner for now. Titoxd(?!?) 05:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
This was predicted weeks in advance. The IFE will not give an official result until probably the end of the week, as the official manual count will begin Wednesday. Mexico still doesn't have a President Elect, and until the IFE says otherwise, a statement that says such and such, or such and other candidate is the President Elect must be regarded as vandalism. Hari Seldon 06:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Just actively revert unsourced additions, and keep reverting if sources are not added, as it would be indeed vandalism if it were false. Titoxd(?!?) 06:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

There is no runoff vote in Mexican presidential elections. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 14:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Poll table to lengthly

First, I'd recomend deleting all references to the internal polls taken by each political party. It's hard to see them as being any more accurate than internal polls taken by the major parties in US elections. Second, they go back way too far in time; I'd sugest that only the 3rd party opinion polls taken within a few days of the poll blackout dates be kept because voters change their minds over time. Jon 13:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Legislature election

Shouldn't there be some results for the legislative seats by now, at least for the least competive of the districts? Jon 16:41, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Socialist slogan poorly translated?

The Socialist campaign slogan, "Por el bien de todos, primero los pobres", is translated here as "For the well-being of all, poor people first". But wouldn't a more appropriate, accurate and better-sounding translation be, "For the well-being of all, first the poor"?

That's right. Fixed. Titoxd(?!?) 01:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not really sure where to mention it...

But the Mexican stock exchange rose 4.77% today as result of the elections. Titoxd(?!?) 01:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Its mentionable, it will probally drop when AMLO challenges the results. The exchange is much more viotale than American exchanges and hinged widly on wether the more business friendly Calderón would win or lose to the more socialistic AMLO.--mitrebox 13:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit cut to here for cleanup

Let's clean up this edit, please

---

<Begin cut for cleanup>

Recently several irregularities have been noted on the proces of preliminary results <ref> http://senderodelpeje.blogspot.com/2006/07/imagen-ms-clara.html<ref>. Polling station-level incongruencies, in which several votes have been aded to the rulling party's candidate. While all theese irregularities will be cleared when a recount is made starting Wednesday July 5th, the apparition of theese presents serious doubts to the legitimacy of IFE.

<End cut for cleanup> --Rednblu 03:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Too much POV, the claim of irregularities is already mentioned in the article. Titoxd(?!?) 05:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lower House Comparisons election 2003 count doesn't add up

In the articles current form, for the beginning of parliment, they only sum up to 498; not 500. (The disolution of parliment number is fine.) This would seem to indicate either an error in some of the parties results or else 2 seats left unassigned at the time. (If this were for the US; I'd guess the winning candidate also ran successfully for governor in at least one case; two candidates post humously winning in the same congressional election would be unheard of here.) Jon 13:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I went to the source article on the 2003 Election and found the source of the error. It was simply a math error there. I've fixed the count there and here. Jon 15:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Name of this article & merge needed

The other Mexican election articles are [Year #] Mexican General Election and not Mexican General Election, year #. Accordingly this article needs renamed to match. This is however further complicated by someone having created a much briefer article called 2006 Mexican General Election that isn't as good as this one. The merge tags don't seem to cover well what really needs to happen which is merge that content into this article but use that articles name. Jon 15:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This article needs the future election tag

I added it (in place of a more general current event) and another editor deleted the tag entirely, not even placing a "current" one. The "future election" tag is for both ongoing and future elections. Until the results are final, this is an ongoing election and therefore the future election tag should be included. Jon 18:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Which order are they counting ballots?

I'm not even sure if the voting authority or press is releasing which districts they've counted as part of the process; but if they are, it would be useful info to include. It could make a big difference which districts they haven't yet counted on the expected outcome until all the votes are fully counted. The US analogy is it makes a big difference if it's primarily Democratic or Republican areas that haven't been counted fully in a tight election late on election night. Jon 21:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Not sure other than things are looking different this time around. AMLO's lead is slowly dropping but as more stations report then less the chance is that the gap will bridged by Calderón. Phildav76 22:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Who (govermental agency/person) oversees/certifies the election and decides if recounting is necessary? --mitrebox 22:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I think it goes into a Florida-esque legal hell; there's no precedent for this in Mexican history (simply because the PRI won everything for so long), at least in a Presidential race. Possibly in a local/state race, but I'm not sure. Also, with respect to the gap being bridged, AMLO's lead has dropped by about half in the last 7% of ballots; this could literally come down to a few tenths of a percentage point either way.

Also, to hazard a guess on the ballot-counting order, I think the Federal District and Mexico State ballots got counted fairly early on, and were over-represented in early counts. Everything else has been moderating this influx, and the lack of ballots from that area (which voted lopsidedly for AMLO) coming in late would explain the reason for his total dropping off badly. --69.72.99.217 05:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC) Anakin

I saw in one broadcast that two states in the northern part of the country (Sonora and Chihuahua) were not colored-in in the IFE's state map, but that was a while ago, and in the worst case, it's at most speculatory. I haven't seen any official indication of that data, though. Titoxd(?!?) 05:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
And given the last spat of votes shifting the total even more to Calderon, I suspect that those two states have a lot of the outlying votes. I would honestly not be surprised to see Calderon pull this one out if that's the case... --69.72.99.217 05:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC) Anakin
Found something:
Colima, 28:3%; Durango, 59.18%; Baja California, 58.14%; Sonora, 59.75%; Querétaro, 73.93%; Puebla, 75. 57%; Nuevo León, 76.53%; Aguas Calientes, 80.42%.[4]
So yes, all of those are heavily PAN. Titoxd(?!?) 07:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I am watching Televisa now and they are pretty much saying the gap is under .20 percent, and there are still some ballots to come. So, as Titoxd said, it could be a small PAN victory. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 08:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Now it is at .10 percent. Is there a runoff vote in Mexico in cases like this? And how would it work? User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 08:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
No runoff unless the election is declared void by the TRIFE (Tribunal Federal Electoral). I'm watching the El Universal portal, and the lead is currently 0.09%. Like a good telenovela, this gets more interesting as the plot advances. Titoxd(?!?) 08:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Televisa has now turned into spam programming, Telemundo is toast for the night (no State Anthem, which is strange), so now I am watching Azteca America. PAN is just celebrating right now, since they just took the slim lead. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 09:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
This is highly likely to end up in Court anyway. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 12:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. AMLO isn't going to let this one go.--69.72.99.203 12:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)Anakin
It will, as AMLO has challenged the results. Titoxd(?!?) 18:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
CNN stated that Calderon has won, but AMLO will challenge the results. Only if my girlfriend's IFE card was not stolen >_< . User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Is the result official now, except for court challenges? The BBC is reporting "final results have now confirmed a razor-thin victory for ... Felipe Calderon". If so, we should probably update the part that says there's no official results yet. --Delirium 21:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I believe this is final but not quite offical yet. Could be a few days; they probably want to double check the summations a few times. I think the approative phrase would be "Calderon projected winner" or something similar. This would be in line with how US news agencies report races here where a winner is clear but the result hasn't been certified. (In the US, it takes a week or two even in a landslide for the states to certify elections, in part because abstinee ballots that have been mailed are often free to be counted if they arrive for the next few days afterwords as long as they were postmarked in time.) Jon 00:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
No, it is indeed official, barring the courts. There's no absentee ballots in Mexico (or rather, they are, but they're due a week before the election and if they do not arrive, they're not counted). The IFE's presiding commissioner has indicated that Calderón did win, indeed.[5] Titoxd(?!?) 00:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
According to the LA Times, most of the votes from Mexicans in the USA voted for Calderon, but not sure how other nations fared. However, I expect a few tense weeks. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 00:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Not really, apparently according to law IFE cannot officially declare a winner until the Court has validated the election. This point has been usually moot on most recent elections because the margin of victory has commonly been a few percent points, so the winners were clear anyway. Obviously this is not the case in this election and thus we have to wait till the Court issues the last word. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 10:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mexico Presidential Election Ballots Found in Dump

See [6]. I'd say this deserves a mention somewhere in the article Btyner 02:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd be fine with adding it in, but it'd be more convincing if we could cite a mainstream news source; if The Raw Story is the only source, that's a bit more questionable. --Delirium 04:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Searching the referenced Retuers article (mainly about ALMO wanting to sue) I only found this The daily newspaper El Universal reported 10 ballot boxes and a polling station report were found in a garbage dump in a poor neighborhood on the edge of Mexico City. Note it doesn't say if the boxes contained filled out ballots, or even if the boxes were the sealable ones that ballots are placed in and sent to be counted (which most certanly would be numbered for each polling district and would be tracked), if the boxes were for blank ballots and were now not required. The report on the other hand may be an initial report or one of many copies. I don't know but I think the officials at the polls don't count the ballots (or even have time to) so the report likely only contains infomation on the number of persons voting, and how everything went. I know it sounds like a lot of excuses but there are just a lot of other possiblities and I don't think anyone reading this article has a lot of education in the offical procedures of handeling ballots for Mexican presidential elections. --mitrebox 05:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
It's irrelevant whether the boxes were not required anymore: all paperwork, used or unused, must be accounted for by the end of the election according to law. Also, to answer your doubt, ballots are counted by the officials at the polls before representatives of all parties. Results are tallied and written down (in both number and letter, say 50 and "fifty") on paperwork provided by IFE (the famous actas). Once this is done for one ballot box, the votes are sealed inside a folder in front of party representatives and the acta is attached to it. What they apparently found was both actas not accounted for and ballot boxes. La Jornada covered this story on their front page a couple days ago ([7]). It is a "mainstream" source, albeit one with a marked leftist tendency. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 17:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Get a better source saying that ballot boxes with ballots were found in a dump and it goes in...and I have to wonder if they were for AMLO or Al Gore (j/k). Seriously, though, if something substantive comes of this through a mainstream source, it looks good. Otherwise, it reeks of tabloids stirring up trouble. Besides, why would there be tossed-out ballot boxes in the one area where the political machinery is most likely controlled by AMLO's people and he had the biggest margins of victory? That doesn't quite follow.--69.72.99.239 12:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)Anakin
Here we go: One case in Cd Neza and one in Xalapa. Aille 16:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Calderon is not yet president elect

The article mentions that IFE declared Felipe Calderón President Elect, IFE cannot declare President Elect, that is the job of the Federal Electoral Tribunal, even in the case that the election results had not been challenged by Mr. Lopez Obrador. IFE only provides for the official ballot tally. The Tribunal has until September 6 to do so.

Thanks

Is because they are going to recount the votes again,because Lopez Obrador has claimed that there was a fraud, and the TRIFE is going to do an approval to Lopez Obrador if what he says is real, but if it's not, the TRIFE is going to say that Calderon is the future presiden of Mexico. Sarah sofía 01:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
The fact remains that Calderón is not *YET* the president elect. Wait until he has his majority certificate, as issued by the TEPJF, to proclaim him the winner; should López Obrador's challenges result in entire booths (casillas) being nullified, the numbers may very well change. Given how close the election was, and the fact that a) López Obrador is going to challenge the results in front of the Tribunal and b) there are serious allegations of fraud, I guess it's the impartial, wikipedian thing to do.
Regardless of allegations of fraud and such, we cannot declare anyone President-elect until one of the candidates gets his constancia de mayoría (the official proof that he won the election). To date that has not happened yet. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 13:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Exactly, Calderón is a Virtual winner,but we have to wait, until September, anyway Calderón is not still president, he will be president until December 1st.--Sarah sofía 18:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Administrator abuse

Why has it taken days for Wikipedia administrators to admit that Obrador lost? Instead of abusing your power, you should face facts and stop omitting major news events on the main page. Tchadienne 02:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

What do admins even have to do with it? Anyone could add that information. Besides, it says there, Calderon got the vote preference, it's just going to be held up in court. Titoxd(?!?) 02:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Most of the American press are calling the victory for PAN, but there are several dmore steps that neede to be done in Mexico, and given how the election is very close, I would not be surprised if we have to wait, like all of my countrymen did in 2000. Just relax, the admins are not trying to hide anything, we are just waiting for the official word from TRIFE. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 13:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TRIFE

For the record, TRIFE (Tribunal del Instituto Federal Electoral: Federal Electoral Institute Tribunal) doesn't exist anymore. It lost its authonomy a few years ago and became a part of the judicial power; it is now called TEPJF (Tribunal Electoral del Poder Judicial de la Federación: Electoral Tribunal of the Judicial Power of the Federation). That tribunal is the one that will declare a winner of the election.

please provide sources.--BMF81 11:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
He's right. But they still use the domain http://www.trife.org.mx/. Aille 22:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Congressional elections

Maybe I don't understand how the plurinominal seats are assigned so I might be wrong. I thought plurinominal seats were assigned based on proportional representation, that is, based on the percentage of votes obtained in the general legistlative elections. Yet, how can it be that PAN, having obtained the greatest percentage of votes in the Congress is allocated only 69 PR seats, whereas PRD (and the percentage difference between PAN and PRD is small) is allocated 100? --Alonso 15:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Two more things: First, the PR seats as presented in the article add up to 245 not 200!!, and from [8] you can get these results for PR seats:

  • PAN: 66
  • Alianza por México (PRI-PVEM): 55
  • Por el bien de todos (PRD-PT-CV): 58
  • Nueva Alianza: 9
  • Alternativa: 4

which unfortunately only add up to 192. Does anyone know the real results? --Alonso 15:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Re your first comment: the PR deputies are not assigned in direct proportion to the national vote (but, I think, that is the system used in the Senate), but rather by means of a formula that works to ensure that the total number of seats each party gets (the 200 PR and the 300 districts combined) more accurately reflects the parties' share of the national vote. The PR deputies thus help reward parties for coming a close second in various districts. See Mixed member proportional representation. As for the total of 192, maybe the (somewhat complex) calculations weren't finished yet? Is that another function of the TRIFE/TEPJF? Aille 15:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
More. The MMPR article says it is used for the Chamber of Deputies, but Elections in Mexico says it's parallel voting. Take your pick. Aille 16:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I didn't know about the mixed-reward stuff. Whatever it is, the results obtained from El Universal (link above) make more sense (as parties seem to get PR seats in proportion to votes) than those reported in this wiki article. I insist, not only the assignation of seats seems irrational (in my opinion) but it adds up to 245; and that cannot be so: PR deputies should sum up to 200. --Alonso 22:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Right. I think I see where the problem is: on the table, the FPP and PR results for the two alliances are inverted: if those two columns are swapped, the totals reach 200 & 300. And that's supported by the (preliminary) numbers here. I'll fix that on the template now. Aille 23:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
After reviewing both articles, (mixed member proportional representation and parallel voting, I realize that El Universal's results might not be accurate either, so we'll have to wait for IFE's final results. But at least I learned how the Mexican electoral system works: like parallel voting, proportionality is only confinded to the plurinominal section of the congress (that is, an overall proportionality of the legislature is not achieved, as it would be the case with MMP); however, like MMP the votes of the party that wins the FPP seat by first majority are discounted from the parallel voting; and then it does make sense that the second majority party would get more plurinominal seats than the first majority party. And that's what happened on the previous legislature (2003): [9], where PAN got more PR seats than PRI as the second majority (or first minority). --Alonso 23:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Expatriate results?

Does anyone know of any breakdowns of the Mexican expatriate vote?
By candidates? Here. Aille

[edit] Exit polls

I see exit polls mentioned once in the article but without specifics, citations, results, sources, links, etc.. I would be interested in seeing that kind of info in the article. So far there is only this info in the article,

"Nevertheless, front-running presidential candidates Felipe Calderón (PAN) and Andrés Manuel López Obrador (PRD) declared themselves the winners, basing their speeches on a number of private exit-polls, some quoted and some not quoted, that gave a lead within the margin of error." --Timeshifter 16:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Proposal for a Legitimicy Challange page link to this one, to candidates

The current challange to the legitimy of the elections should have an article of its own. The marches that Lopez Obrador has gathered are already historical. Regardless of the decision that the TEPJF makes, the current challange may create governability problems in the future.

I do not want to attach this it to the main page because it would slant the article. Maybe this article can link to the new page under a brief Controversy subheading at the end of the document .

My goal is to gather the position of the two candidates, and the position of international observers.

Then, follow with the list of the most common arguments used to challange the transparency of the election, followed by counter-arguments.


It will take me a few days to gather the information with its proper references.

I like the idea. You should perhaps start the article with the name "2006 Mexican election controversy", and then outline the causes for the controversy and the expressions for it. Hari Seldon 20:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Page has been created. Needs more info. Help! Mexican general election 2006 controversies --A1437053 18:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] State Recount Numbers

Can anyone make the list with state recount percentages more presentable? --A1437053 07:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Wikipedia Home Page

We made Wikipedia's home page! We made Wikipedia's home page! We made Wikipedia's home page! --A1437053 09:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Calderón Hinojosa

Is there any particular reason this name is used in the table? It seems to me it would be better to use Felipe Calderón as is used throughout the rest of the article for consistency and clarity. Nil Einne 14:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

NB, the same also applies to Roberto Madrazo Nil Einne 14:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
It seems to me that there is no reason to have the last names in the tables, other than to have a consistent table arrangement (all candidates have only their last names shown). Perhaps the reason for doing this is to favor PRD's candidate, Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador. If we decide on showing only the first name and the first last name of the candidates in the table, then we would end up calling the PRD's candidate "Andres Lopez", and such usage is extremely controversial in Mexico. I would think the best way of dealing with this would be to use the complete name of the candidates, or agree to have no consistency in the table markers and just use the names that are more common to each candidate (Felipe Calderón, Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, and Roberto Madrazo) Hari Seldon 15:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Calls for reform?

Have there been many calls for electoral reform in Mexico to change to some system other than FPTP (plurality). It would seem to me that this election would emphasise to Mexicans one of the potential disadvantages of FPTP. I know little about Mexican politics but given the nature of Roberto Madrazo's politicial affiliations, I would assume Andrés Manuel López Obrador would most likely have won were some proportional system (such as instant run-off or two part votes) been used as his supporters would have been more likely to support Andrés Manuel López Obrador than Felipe... Nil Einne 14:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that proportional representation is already partially used in the congress. It would seem likely then that the Mexican people are comfortable with and understand proportionality. So again, I would wonder whether there has been any call to change the Presidential system? Nil Einne 15:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Proportionality in Mexico is a mess. The reason why Congress uses proportionality partially is an old one. Before the 1990s, the PRI controlled government and controlled elections and fixed them at will, so there was no opposition representation anywhere, and the PRI always won. The partial proportional system of congress was created to simulate some form of democracy, and to prevent other forms of political expression. Congress, however, did not matter at all until the late 1990s.
Now that Mexico has a widely accepted democracy, regarded by most as being capable of performing clean and transparent elections, (even the PRD agrees to this in the 2006 Federal Elections... for legislators, but not for President), then the purpose of proportionality seems to be lost: congress no longer needs proportionality to give representation to all political parties; they can now get it through the vote.
Added to this, political parties are financed by the government, and it is illegal to seek private funding other than donations from members. Plus, no independent candidates are allowed, so the government is regarded by some as a party oligarchy.
So, most voices who have expressed a concern for a reform have been calling for less proportional representation, and more freedom for political parties (less government funding, allowance of independent candidates, allowance of individuals to submit proposals for law reform -now it can only be done through a legislator who has no incentive to listen-, allowance of re-election for legislators, and so on...)
And it is illogical to assume that AMLO would have won in a proportional system of parliamentary government (or in a second round elections). The PRI does not have a defined ideology. Equal number of PRIistas supported both candidates. It seems to me that in a second round elections Felipe Calderón would have won, because there are more people who don't want AMLO (a little more than 60% of the electorate) than those who do (a little less than 40%), according to numerous polls. The 60% who does not want AMLO may not necessarily want Felipe Calderon either, but I think that in a second round election system, Calderón would have been the compromise. In a parliament system of government, the Prime Minister elected would have been a compromise, some other third candidate...
So, in conclusion, there is a great concern for political reform in Mexico, however, I don't think that this article should address that. Secondly, political reform should not be made to favor just one candidate. It seems clear to me that, despite many Mexicans favoring AMLO, they are not the majority (as expressed in numerous polls), and elections are designed to benefit the rule of the majority. In this case, the elections seem a clear example of how a majority of people disliked a certain candidate (Lopez Obrador) and compromised in favor of a less dislikable candidate (Felipe Calderón). This is the reverse case of what happened in Vicente Fox. Many Mexicans favored Fox (about 40%), but most (about 60%) disliked him. Fox won with the support of the many, but not the majority, and thus was unable to make a useful government.
Well, strictly speaking Calderon is more or less equally disliked, since he got just slightly more votes than AMLO and the "vote" of people who abstained could go both ways, and the only realistic poll data we have at the moment is the actual tally of votes. As it is a second round, asuming an equal split of PRI votes, would lead us to a situation where the winner would likely not be decided because of a "compromise" voting tendency, but because the voters for one party didn't turn up to vote in equal numbers as those for the opposite party. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 19:23, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Rune, I don't understand your argument.
I don't think that the "poll-mania" is a fiasco.
I agree that Calderón is equally illegitimate, as it didn't get the majority vote either. But, judging by how the legislative vote went, I don't think that he is "equally" disliked. Hari Seldon 04:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
It is arguable whether votes in Congress truly reflect a party preference. There's a marked tendency in Mexican voters to vote a different party in Congress than they did for President (granted, not every voter does it, but it happens often enough to be significant). The "poll-mania" was a fiasco because from the very beginning the polls where openly used for propaganda by all parties as opposed to their being instruments for gauging public opinion. Polls showing PRI on lead by several percent points, Mitofsky half-accepting that their polls were not reliable, "secret" methodologies and so on... The polls were too controversial, too useless and at the end, divisive. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 09:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Rune: my argument on the legislative vote was to try and demonstrate that Calderón was less disliked than AMLO. Obviously, voters do not vote for a party they dislike, no matter how the differentiate their vote. Calderón may not be first preference for over 60% of the population, but it isn't a dislikable figure. On the other hand, the case of AMLO has evolved to the point where most who do not like it, hate him. Of course, it isn't an absolute value, but I think it is safe to assume that AMLO is slightly more disliked than Calderon. Hari Seldon 14:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "In Mexico.."

"(in Mexico the President cannot run for re-election)" The sentence is a bit POV. E.g., if the whole Wikipedia is written by Mexicans, they might just say "In USA, the president can run for re-election..." This is POV most probably written by a person who grew up in a country that the President can run for re-election, i.e. most countries; but we still must remain neutral, so I have changed it to "unlike some other countries".Aranherunar 05:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't see what's POV about a fact written in the Constitution... the article is about Mexico after all. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 09:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm afraid you misunderstood. It is a fact, yes, but who says that any President can run for re-election at all? Saying "In Mexico.." in my opinion is a bit biased. I.e. In my country there is no such thing as re-election, so when my neighbours read it they'll probably be mystified. Assuming that all readers understand re-election, and assuming they do not know, i.e. will be surprised that Mexicans presidents cannot run for re-election, is POV. Aranherunar 10:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
You might argue this is a systemic bias issue rather than POV, but I think you are reading too much into it. If people might not know what re-election is they can just go and read the article on elections. It's impossible to cater for all potential readership and your current wording is just unnecessary obfuscation of a true, verifiable fact. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 11:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
It is a fact, but presented in a biased way. I understand my writing is not that well and feel free to change it as long as its neutral. Instead of saying they cannot run for re-election, how about that they cannot run for re-election twice? Or re-election thrice? The sentence presents half of a fact, and assumes that the reader knows the other half, which many people actually do, but, still, some do not. Aranherunar 11:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Because they cannot run for reelection even once. I still fail to see your point, especially what you mean about "half a fact". -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 11:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I completely agree with you, Rune. Since I am the one who wrote that particular line, let me tell you what I was thinking (it definetly was not POV).
1.- I was thinking that it should be clear why Vicente Fox was being substituted. In many countries where re-election is allowed (like most english-speaking countries, and this is the english wikipedia after all) a President or leader of State can only be replaced with a vote of no-confidence, or when he retires (or when he loses the re-election campaign, or when his term expires and is no longer elligible for re-election). By adding the no-reelection fact I made it clear that Fox was not retiring and was not leaving due to a vote of no-confidence, I was merely clarifying that the country he rules (Mexico) does not allow re-election.
2.- Since in Mexico we speak spanish, most likely the average reader of the english wikipedia article will be a non-Mexican who is trying to find out something about the Mexican general elections of 2006 (which is the title of the article). Therefore, the precision "In Mexico" was clear, explanatory and very to the point.
3.- IN MEXICO, re-election is not allowed under any circumstance to any elected public servant, being a mayor, a governor, a President, a deputy, or a senator. They can never run for re-election. Once they hold that position for the first time, they can never do it again. This is an important fact of Mexican politics, and since the article IS ABOUT Mexican politics, and particularly about Mexican elections, the fact that IN MEXICO re-election is not allowed is important. I don't see why it is POV or biased to point out that in the country being researched by the reader (Mexico) the constitution forbids re-election. I was happy with the original wording, and suggests we switch back, as there is no argument to point towards it being POV.
I understand, and I apologize for failing to make my point. What I am saying is, your first and second point are biased to the English-speaking world. I do not know if I am correct, but I think we should not assume what our readers do not understand, which I called "POV".
Rune, it appears to me that you still do not seem to get what I am saying. Some readers may know very few about election and re-elections - Yes, they can check about it, but an encyclopedia shouldn't be something that causes you to flip from a page to another page endlessly. Saying that "In Mexico they cannot run for re-election" will be confusing (I myself is rather confused) for readers that didn't even know what countries can run for re-elections. What I mean by half a fact is, the complete fact can be said as such "In Mexico they cannot run for re-election, but in most countries with elections, they can". Assuming that the reader knows that in most countries (or rather, in most democracies) people can run for re-election is what I call the POV of a person who lives in such a country.
As for being in the English Wikipedia, another problem is we can hardly have different versions of articles in different Wikipedia languages. Should we put "In USA they can run for re-election", etc. in the "Mexican Wikipedia" (Though it does not exist. Simply an example)? I do not have any major dissatisfaction with the past version, but I simply feel saying the complete sentence makes it better. Thank you. Aranherunar 15:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Ok, so if your point is that you want to add context saying that in other countries re-election is allowed, then I have a reply for you: other countries are irrelevant to the article, this article is about Mexican elections of 2006.
Encyclopedias shouldn't make users flip through innecesarilly, but the articles should be concise and cover only the topic of study. Elections is a broader topic of study, and "Mexican general elections, 2006" is a concise topic of study. Should the article also make precisions on who is the PAN, the PRI, the PRD, all the parties, all the candidates, what is an opinion poll and what is a presidential debate, or what is a legislature? If the reader needs precision on a given topic, there is a page for such topic. The article should not be unnnecesarily enlonged.
The point is we HAVE different versions of articles in different languages. There is a number of reasons for it: the editors are different, and so are their interests, information, and point of views, the cultural context is different (in Spanish you don't need text to precise the meaning of spanish words, for instance), and there is a large number of reasons why the different articles across different languages of wikipedia are substantially different for the most part.
Actually, the article on the President of the United States specifies that the President can run for re-election only once. In any case, this is so common a knowledge that it hardly needs a reference. Not the same happens with President of Mexico.
Finally, there is no such thing as a "Mexican Wikipedia", but two wikipedia languages exist with languages spoken in Mexico: the nahuatl wikipedia, (nahuatl is the language spoken by the Aztecs), and the spanish wikipedia.
Hari Seldon 16:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
In the french language wikipedia, the Vicente Fox article has the following statement:
Il rejoint en 1980 le Partido Acción Nacional (le Parti d'Action National, ou PAN, est un parti de droite qui défend le libéralisme et les privatisations).
It roughly translates as "In 1980, he joined the Partido Accion Nacional (National Action Party, or PAN, is a right-wing party that defends liberalism and privatizations)"...
Not only is the statement extremely point of view, but also the precision would be unnecesary in Mexico, but necessary for French speakers. Different languages require different precisions. Hari Seldon 17:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Exactly because that it is not about other countries that "In Mexico" should not be used, because it is from an outsider's view and it assumes that the reader knows a lot about other countries' ways of election - whereas you said was not concise. Since it is related to Mexico, we should write it in a way that Mexico/Mexican policies are the focus of our thinking, not "other countries". "In Mexico" sounds a bit like a tourist guide to me and rather confuses me. You said that "other countries" should not be included in the sentence, whereas the sentence actually implies "other countries". Thanks. Aranherunar 03:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
But the article is read by people from other countries, and that makes it necessary to explain that Mexico forbids re-election. The line is not implying anything except that in Mexico, re-election is not allowed. If in other countries re-election is not allowed, it should not be confusing. If in other countries re-election is allowed, then it is a useful clarification to understand why Vicente Fox is being replaced. If in other countries elections are not held, then the wikipedia offers an excellent article on elections. I don't see where the problem lies.
You said that we should write it in a way that Mexico/Mexican policies are the focus of our thinking, what is wrong with saying "In Mexico"? It is obvious that by referring to Mexico through an inclusive approach, we ARE focusing on Mexico/Mexican policies, in this case, the policy of not allowing re-election. By adding "other countries" to the sentence, the focus ceases to be Mexican policies, and it begins to be elections in many different countries.
It is to be noted that most english speaking countries, particluarly those with the larger population and internet access, regularly hold elections. Those readers of the article who use english as a second language are probably well versed on elections and their mechanisms. It seems clear to me that, in the english language wikipedia, this precision, as it is written, is useful, concise, and informative. I don't see what is wrong with it. Hari Seldon 06:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

(reindenting) I think assuming that people will make the association in their minds regarding reelection in other countries goes a longer way than assuming they know something about electoral systems in the world (i.e. you cannot predict how other people think but it's easier to guess what they know already). I insist this is obfuscation of a simple fact and that too much "digital ink" has been spent on this. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 09:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

User Hseldon, perhaps you do not understand the sentence the way I do. To me, it implies that other countries do allow re-elections. If not so, there would be no particular reason to mention the fact at all, because mentioning that it does not allow re-elections means that its somehow different from other countries - and the writer assumes that the reader clearly understands the difference, which, in most cases, the reader does, but in some cases he/she does not.
You said, "If in other countries re-election is not allowed, it should not be confusing.", which I in this case must disagree, because I certainly felt confused at the sentence even though I perfectly understood the election systems of "English-speaking countries" you mentioned. In our country most of us do not even know what is a re-election, saying that "In Mexico re-elections are not allowed" would sound absurd to us because we didn't know re-elections are allowed in any country at all. In fact, saying that sentence would sound the same as "In Mexico re-electing for twice are not allowed", "In Mexico re-electing for thrice are not allowed", etc.
As for the focusing on Mexico, I would again disagree if you say "In Mexico" would sound like someone focusing on Mexico. If a German is writing about Germany, would he say "In Germany they..."? Definitely not, because he is writing about his homeland. The sentence "In Mexico" is written from an outsider's view, like an old woman telling some youngsters "In Mexico they do whatever..". However, this is simply a different interpretation of the sentence, I believe, so this argument is closed.
Again I must disagree however that "unlike other countries" causes the sentence to wander away from Mexican policies. In fact, the sentence now is both biased towards people from countries with elections, and does not give an explanation of the fact completely. It should be either that the sentence be removed, or be fully explained - however, since you are arguing on both ends, half insisting that the English Wikipedia should suit English-speakers, and half insisting that it should focus on Mexico, I would suggest the full sentence. Perhaps you are from a country that regularly holds elections, so you do have a different understanding of the sentence. Anyway, as Rune.Welsh stated, this is a quite meaningless discussion and I did not mean for it to become so long, so I have decided to let matters rest. Thanks.
As a reminder, I would also suggest you, Hseldon, not to edit the disputed part before the discussion ends from now on. This is unfaithful behavior, can be taken as offensive, and may trigger an edit war if the other user is quick-tempered. Aranherunar 12:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Attempts to clarify

This article obviously has a number of non-native English speakers as editors. I am currently trying to bring the text into a more natural form for English readers, including removal of redundancies, simplification of extended sentences, correction of (a few) spelling mistakes, inconsistent use of tense, and other grammar related issues. While no actual change in the meaning of the article is intended, it is possible that I may have misunderstood what was written, and made alterations that do not reflect the original information presented. If you find such an instance, please inform me. Anonymous Wikipedian 01:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] EU election monitors call for run-off:

http://english.people.com.cn/200611/25/eng20061125_325062.html Should this be in the article? It's at least been received positively by the head of the lower house Jorge Zermeno... —Nightstallion (?) 14:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Probably. I remember the idea of a run-off being discussed by Mexican analysts a few times after the election. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 20:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I'll add it. —Nightstallion (?) 15:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alliance vs. Coalition

A google search in AMLOs site (www.amlo.org.mx) for "Alianza por el Bien de Todos" gives no hits, while a search for "Coalicion por el bien de todos" gives 26 hits. I believe the grouping originally called itself an "Alliance", but later registered the name "Coalition" (almost certainly to distinguish itself from "Alianza por México"). The copy of the coalition agreement in the PT's page, [10] never talks of the "Alliance", and mentiones the "Coalition" several times (with capital letters). The page should be changed, as should the relevant page in Wikipedia which also misidentifies the name. References to "the Alliance" should refere to the PRI-PVEM alliance, while references to the PRD-PT-Convergencia grouping should be to "the Coalition". Magidin 20:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/e/x/Talk%7EMexican_general_election%2C_2006_ff6b.html"