The PRD asserts that
in 4,200 of the 6,500 precincts counted so far, there have been 132,000 "altered votes." In 1,431 precincts, there were 41,831 "illegal votes," while in 2,807 precincts, 61,374 votes disappeared. By contrast, El Universal columnist Ricardo Aleman claims
that there is absolutely no evidence of fraud. But his column fails to address specific complaints that have been agreed to: the illegal opening of ballot packets, for example, that has so greatly amplified the suspicion of fraud. And he closes his column with the statement that 65% of the voters didn't want AMLO. Ironically, the same could be said about Calderon. Where are the reasonable voices that hear the arguments of the opponent?
The PRD may seek
to have the ballots from precincts where there is clear evidence of tampering be annulled. This would have the effect of reversing the electoral result. They list a number of examples, including votes for PAN with a check attached, more votes than possible voters, and three precincts where not a single PRD vote was recorded. Some other examples:
* Zacatecas 3, precinct 1610: 109 votes more for AMLO, 101 less for FeCal
* In Vetagrande, an error of orthography, in which 91 votes for PAN was recorded as 191
* In district 1 (Fresnillo), 43/45 packets opened
* In district 2 (Jerez), packets not sealed
* Chihuahua, district 8: 108 packets contained 1,418 extra ballots. Most packets had ballots outside the seals, perhaps vote shaving.
* In Campeche, the representative of the court said the counts were only off by a vote or two per precincts (which, if that's widespread, I would say is proof positive of fraud)
* District 5, precinct 1101 of San Luis Potosi: 160 votes for Calderon weren't substantiated by ballots
* In Districts 2-7, open packets
(And many more examples)
Former Supreme Court Justice Genaro David Góngora Pimentel says that
Article 97 para. 4 permits the Count to intervene in the election, if there is an evident violation of the citizens's vote. Article 97 was invoked by a 6:5 vote in the case of the Lydia Cacho, a journalist in Puebla believed to be in danger of death.
AMLO has been in Chiapas.
I admit that I don't understand the local politics. It seemed to me to be a sleazy move by the PRI and PAN to grab a governorship. But Astillas tells me
that my interpretation is wrong, that in fact it is Lopez Obrador who has made an opportunistic alliance that doesn't smell right.
An American university professor, Neil Harvey, published a piece
in La Jornada. An excerpt (my paraphrase):
The decision of the electoral tribunal to not recount all the votes will not overcome the lack of credibility of the electoral process by millions of Mexicans. The decision to recount 9% of the precints seems to reveal more of an intent to legitimize an election that is questioned than to provide certainty to the people regarding the actual result.
He reviews three theories of political change: modernization divorced from democratization, democratization as a result of an interplay between the authoritarian state and the opposition independent of the rest of civil society, and democratization as a result of a struggle for rights between various groups independent of economic development. He points to the role of economic development in the Mexican election, since the major election fraud happened in the north, where the PANistas have forgotten the struggles they underwent two decades ago.
In Oaxaca, two teachers were tortured by the police