Wednesday, August 30, 2006
The Mexican Mathdance
Fox's sons, the Bribiesca boys, may be off the hook. Arturo González de Aragón, chief federal auditor categorically rejected that the transactions ascribed to the Bribiescas took place.
Did Fox illegally serve as president, being the son of an American father? That's the extraordinary implication of the birth certificate of Fox's older brother in which
José Luis Fox Pont declares himself to be an American, published in La Jornada.
Of course, another explanation is that Vicente Fox is a bastard.
A bizarre explanation of how the electoral court reached its verdict, from a program called Con Elisa in Mexico City: If a recount would not change the victor in a particular precinct, the precinct was not annulled. So, if Calderon had 250 votes in a precinct and Obrador had 100 votes and it was discovered that 100 votes were fraudulent, the precinct result would stand. The law would seem to require that the precinct be annulled.
Another source, Garras de Paco Garrido seems to have confirmed that this bizarre logic was used. This purports to be an actual copy of the judicial ruling for the complaint for district 03 of Querétaro SUP-JIN-21/2006, and is said to be on the electoral court's website (www.trife.gob.mx), but I can't get the file to download. Garras says (paraphrase):
in district 03, they recounted 59 precincts and only in 9 did they rectify the results. Despite the inconsistencies, the judges only annulled two precincts. Under the standards of the TEPFJ, 38 precincts had results that didn't square, butthe court said
In these precincts, there was some difference between the figures of the basic results, but the difference was smaller than that obtained between the candidates in first and second place in that precinct.Garras continues They annulled precincts 416-1 and 537. In 416-1, the electoral institute gave them 734 ballots, 356 were surplus, 388 citizens voted, placing 361 ballots in the ballot box, from which were obtained 372 votes. Because the PRD won the precinct 137 to 119, the difference of 18 votes is less than the total vote discrepancy (which Garras, using math beyond my means, says is 24). That means the PRD would have won, so the precinct must be annulled. If true, and I suppose it probably is, the Court deserves to be laughed out of office.
Comments:
<< Home
I can see why Nezua Limón Xolagrafik-Jonez decided to take a break. Something has to give, wish it would be soon.
Xicanopwr says, "Something has to give, wish it would be soon."
Watch out: the first thing to give may well be our sanity. The PANistas look to be deaf to reason and blind to facts. They will march the nation over the cliff.
Watch out: the first thing to give may well be our sanity. The PANistas look to be deaf to reason and blind to facts. They will march the nation over the cliff.
This is brilliant. The court will only anull a prescient if it could change the outcome, thereby merely reinforcing the obviously questionable result that Calderon won.
In other words, the court is saying they will only use the recount to confirm the result. In cases were the recount is discrepant with the result, then the whole presicent is tossed out and ignored.
This is simply beyond belief.
In other words, the court is saying they will only use the recount to confirm the result. In cases were the recount is discrepant with the result, then the whole presicent is tossed out and ignored.
This is simply beyond belief.
Welcome to Wonderland, thebhc.
The US election of 2000 was pretty much the same. The Supreme Court declared that we couldn't recount the votes because they themselves had exhausted the time in which to do the recount.
Even there, they lied, imposing an artificial deadline so that George Bush's stolen electoral votes would be granted "safe harbor."
The whole list of means by which Scalia and Co. foreswore themselves, defaced the law, and turned the courts into a bitter joke would fill a book.
Many, actually. I own a bookshelf full.
By these standards of honesty, deeply sophisticated in their corruption and wise in the ways of deceit, the Mexican Court is like an innocent child.
Post a Comment
The US election of 2000 was pretty much the same. The Supreme Court declared that we couldn't recount the votes because they themselves had exhausted the time in which to do the recount.
Even there, they lied, imposing an artificial deadline so that George Bush's stolen electoral votes would be granted "safe harbor."
The whole list of means by which Scalia and Co. foreswore themselves, defaced the law, and turned the courts into a bitter joke would fill a book.
Many, actually. I own a bookshelf full.
By these standards of honesty, deeply sophisticated in their corruption and wise in the ways of deceit, the Mexican Court is like an innocent child.
<< Home
More blogs about politics.
