Here's how the Election Fraud was carried out in Mexico

[kpete]

Here's how the Election Fraud was carried out in Mexico
by ourobouros
Sat Jul 29, 2006

As the days continue to pass after the Mexican presidential election, members of the Coalición por el Bien de Todos (Coalition for the Good of All) continue to present what is called "prueba superveniente", or emerging evidence, of the electoral fraud and how it was carried out.

.................

On election night I was a proud Mexican citizen, convinced that finally my country had reached a point in which actual democracy was viable; I was certain the elections had been clean and there had been no fraud. I even jumped on a few people on this site who derided our democracy and I strongly defended our electoral system.

That was then. This is now. Back then, I thought (as many others did), that every political party (or at least the major ones) had representatives in EVERY voting station across the country. As the post-electoral debacle began and continued, it was revealed that this was clearly NOT the case.

Today's most recent developments (story en español) brings us a much clearer picture of how this fraud was carried out. A key player in this operation is Elba Esther Gordillo, Teachers' Union longtime leader, longtime PRI official and general snake in the grass. Gordillo had a very public and nasty split with Roberto Madrazo within the PRI, which led her to "found" her own Party (Nueva Alianza) while still in the PRI. Shortly after the election she was caught on tape talking to a priista governor about negotiating with the PAN.

Anyway, here's what the PRD and its allied parties are presenting as evidence of Gordillo and her party's collusion with the PAN:

In over 4,000 voting stations nation wide, where ONLY representatives of PAN or Nueva Alianza (or both) were present, Calderón's votes shot up dramatically, up to 80.77% (statistically impossible). In these voting stations ALONE, Calderón allegedly obtained 320,000 votes (remember the "official" margin between Calderón and AMLO was around 250,000).

In 485 voting stations nationwide, where there were ONLY representatives of Panal, Calderón beat AMLO by a 63.91 to 29.69% margin (!!!)

In 2,366 stations nationwide, where ONLY PAN reps were present, the percentages were 71.47 Calderón, 21.47 AMLO.

Even more scandalous are the results from stations in which only reps from PAN AND Panal were present: 80.77% for Calderón, 13.02% for López Obrador.

more at:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/7/29/92830/7767

[burythehatchet]

1. Apparently not as sophisticated as our systems

[Botany]

2. About the same

In Ohio we had precincts come in @ 85 to 99.7% for bush. (Miami & Lucas Counties)

A survey later interviewed enough voters who said they voted for Kerry
that those figures were false.

In rural and suburban areas that were more under republican control
bush #s almost always went to bush in #s greater then what the exit polls
said they did.

[Pokey Anderson]

5. Well, I don't know about sophisticated. But, they do have PAPER.

They have something they CAN recount.

Of course, if the boxes were stuffed, they'll just be recounting fake paper ballots.

But, some of the reporting elsewhere indicates that the little stacks of votes with the total tallies on top do NOT always match up with the reported tallies that are used to add up the figures centrally. So, a recount, and re-add would be helpful.

[Pokey Anderson]

6. Here's an earlier story on Mexico.

I can't vouch for this guy, but a reporter friend says he's ok.

A Full Recount Would Show that López Obrador Won Mexico’s Presidency by More than One Million Votes
The Tip of the Iceberg of the Crimes Committed by Mexican Electoral Authorities Is the Fraudulent Vote Count of 2006

By Al Giordano
Part II of a Special Series
for The Narco News Bulletin
July 8, 2006
http://www.narconews.com/Issue42/article1967.html

[Peace Patriot]

9. Thanks for pointing us to Al Giordano at Narco News, Pokey!

What an excellent resource it is! He's got PICTURES--concrete evidence of the skew in the first tally--easy to understand charts, and excellent analysis of the political, legal and social situation. He also points out the fascinating fact that Vicente Fox when running for governor faced exactly this same situation that Amlo/PRD is in now--blatant fraud, what to do? And Fox & supporters did big marches and shutdowns of highways, airports, etc., to protest old PRI electoral corruption. The struggle ended with a compromise interim governor put in place; and, in this current situation, a similar thing might occur. Giordano states that Fox has positioned PRD's founder Cuauhtémoc Cárdenas as the choice of interim president, if PAN (Calderon) loses in court and there is a recount with ambiguous results (very possible, given the evidence that some ballots have not been preserved--found in garbage dumps, etc.) He doesn't mention it, but a new election is also possible, I believe--especially if there has been widespread ballot destruction.

If Giordano's analysis is correct--and it's looking right on to me--that this was an election theft of a thousand cuts, involving paper ballots stuffed, lost, miscounted, etc--two or three here, two or three there, or dozens here and there, all over the map in thousands of precincts (combined with unethical and unlawful behavior by the supposed independent federal election authority), then I may have to revise my analysis of our own election system, in which I've stated that massive fraud such as this is far more difficult with paper ballots, handcounted, than it is with electronic voting run on TRADE SECRET, PROPRIETARY programming code, owned and controlled by Bushite corporations, with virtually no audit/recount controls. My point has been that paper ballot fraud certainly can and does occur, but its scope is necessarily limited by human eyes on the count--significantly limited--compared to electronic fraud capability, whereby millions of votes can be changed by a couple of hackers, in a couple of minutes, leaving no trace.

Well, the situation in Mexico is proving one of my points: It can't happen INVISIBLY with handcounted paper ballots. Human eyes and tangible evidence are vitally important. The perps are getting caught. They can try to hide it--but ballots are tangible, seeable items, that have to be dumped in the garbage, if you want to steal an election. And some will be found. With paperless electronic voting, there is no evidence. And even with electronics with a paper ballot backup, audits are non-existent or very inadequate (in the current US system) and recounts are extremely rare. So, once your vote is separated from the evidence of your vote (your ballot getting dumped into a box), what is now your "vote" (turned into electrons) can be EASILY and UNDETECTABLY changed, and so can millions of others.

However, analysis of OUR election system would do well to include the "culture of corruption" factor--corruption among thousands of political workers, fostered by the leadership--as well as class warfare. The rich are always the minority. To win elections, they must first drench the system with money, and also remove politics from the community and put it on TV (privatized, corporate-controlled). They must also convince the middle class (the political worker pool) that their interests lay with the rich, and that dishonesty and unlawfulness in the cause of keeping the rich in power is permissible, and will not be punished. We saw plenty of evidence of this "culture of corruption" in Ohio in 2004. But there has been little investigation and analysis of corruption among election officials wrought by electronic voting--including lavish lobbying, big contracts and secrecy--on a nationwide basis, and among Bushite Republican election officials, nationwide, who likely are "looking the other way" at anomalous numbers and who feel free to do things like unfairly purge black voters from the voting rolls.

If Bushites, warmongers and corporatists lose their electronic voting advantage--if the people dump these election theft machines into 'Boston Harbor,' as they well might do--that will not be the end of Bushite-warmonger-corporatist election fraud. But it will give us at least the chance, that the Mexican leftist majority now has, to put things right: a paper ballot recount.

[Pokey Anderson]

12. Well said, Peace Patriot.

And, certainly not the first time!

I especially liked this:

The rich are always the minority. To win elections, they must first drench the system with money, and also remove politics from the community and put it on TV (privatized, corporate-controlled).

I hadn't thought about the privatization factor of TV, which goes right in step with the privatization of electronic vote tabulation.

[sevenleagueboots]

3. Oh Mayor.........What on TV?

Obrador vs everybody else caught my imagination during the run up to election. Seems a free electronic
media includes soaps but not news just like here. There is an honesty in Mexico missing among the green
go's expressed by Televisa company president Emilio Azcárraga befor his death around the time of their
last election fraud: "Mexico is a country where the working class is screwed and is going to remain screwed... One obligation of television is to bring some fun to those people and to separate them from their sad realities and difficult future"
My daughter informs that all Mexican's now entering Mexico from U.S. must pay $37 at the border.

[mod mom]

4. TV in US functions the same although also spreads false propaganda besides

bringing fun.

[Peace Patriot]

7. Anybody know the difference between PAN and Panal. See point 2 above,

re: "In 485 voting stations nationwide...".

Also, what is a "priista governor"--mentioned at the end of paragraph 4 in the DK article?

The full article and discussion at DK reveals that many poll workers were untrained and polls were often unstaffed or poorly staffed--a situation ripe for the election thieves to step in and provide manipulable or pro-Calderon poll workers. Can anyone account for PRD's poor organization? (Part of it seems to be poverty--polls workers poorly paid, and couldn't afford transportation.)

I'm having trouble keeping these party acronyms straight. Please advise:

PRD: Amlo
PAN: Calderon/Fox
PRI: (the old dominant party, notorious for corruption, includes Gordillo's faction, Neuva Allianza)
Panal: (?)

---------------------------

It's the Teacher's Union that sparked the major, on-going protests in Oaxaca (see stories at narconews). What does Gordillo have to do with that (good or bad), if anything? If she shilled for Calderon, she wouldn't likely be sympathetic to the revolution in Oaxaca--or is she playing a double game?

[OnTheOtherHand]

8. PANAL = Partido Nuevo Alianza (q.v.)

PRIista = affiliated with the PRI

No opinion on Gordillo at this time

[Peace Patriot]

10. Thanks, OTOH! Re: Gordillo, you mean you're not sure what role she

played/is playing? Corrupt, not corrupt, neutral? Do you know anything about the controversy within the PRI--why she formed her own faction or sub-party? Or about Gorillo and the teachers' strike in Oaxaxa?

[OnTheOtherHand]

11. if I claim knowledge of Mexican politics, laugh at me

I know enough to know what I don't know. ;) I mean, I'm not totally tabula rasa, but I knew more 20 years ago.