I spent yesterday afternoon watching the results of the Mexican election trickle in through the IFE's System of Preliminary Electoral Results (PREP). Here's how it went:
The trend was looking pretty good for AMLO (of the PRD) there, and it looked like the lines would cross and he would come out a narrow winner. But early yesterday evening, the gap began to widen again, and now stands at exactly 1% of the vote, or 384,000 votes. While that's not the greatest lead int he world, its fairly solid - so why is everyone still talking about the result being too close to call?
Because it turns out that the PREP is (according to Wikipedia)
not a statistically valid mechanism, but a system of condensing preliminary results of processed ballots as they are counted
This is backed up by the IFE's PREP FAQ (Google translation), which says that the PREP
- Is not a calculation of the results on the base of statistical estimations or projections from a sample.
- Is not a survey of exit or “exit poll” where interview to the people who leave the squares on their emitted vote.
- Is not a fast count in which once closed the voting, the results of certain squares previously selected are compiled.
I'm not sure what the purpose of such a tool is, except possibly for spotting landslide victories.
Election officials have said that the gap between the two frontrunning candidates is likely to be less than 0.3%, and the full count starts on Wednesday. So we'll have to wait until then to start getting real results. As for the cries of fraud emanating from the AMLO camp, it seems that the election met international standards and was run freely and fairly. If Calderon comes out the winner, he has done it fair and square, and the result should be respected.
5 comments:
Obrador has been a solid front runner since campaigning began. There was a large margin with Calderon trailing - until a few months ago. I ran onto a little report saying Bush sent his election advisors down to Mexico (and now can't find it) but the sudden shift in 'smear campaigning v. issues', election irregularites, Calderon's insistance he won, all too closely mirror elections 'Bush-style' to not be suspicious.
NAFTA and Bush are very unpopular south of the border. It just doesn't make sense.
Posted by Anonymous : 7/05/2006 11:54:00 AM
AMLO refused to participate in the first presidential debate, and the polls turned sharply against him after that. While he had clawed back his lead (barely), the one-week moratorium on polling before the election means he could easily have lost it again. As for election irregularities, where? There have been no reports of significant problems, and no reason to doubt that the elections were anything but free and fair (which, given that this is Mexico, is a victory in itself).
I'm sorry, but it looks like our team lost. Better luck next time.
Posted by Idiot/Savant : 7/05/2006 12:50:00 PM
I understand this site's liberalism, and in the case of the US, I absolutely agree. In the US, the Democratic Party is the party of debates, rationality, and "book learnin'". In Mexico, however, Mr. Obrador's party is the party of sound bytes, flimsy rethoric, and anger over rationality. I greatly agree with his "for everyone's sake, the poor first" slogan, but he repeateldy blundered opportunities to explain how exactly did he intend to improve the poor's standard of living.
Posted by Anonymous : 7/06/2006 01:43:00 AM
"Mr. Obrador's party is the party of sound bytes, flimsy rethoric, and anger over rationality"
Well obviously someone needs to come all the way down here, and see how things are truly going. Never has Obrador been this way, on the contrary, it is Calderon the one who has always wanted to inspire fear the same way it is done in other countries *cough USA cough* to win the elections. We all now know there has been a fraud against Obrador, and it surely didn't happen because he is in an ill-conceived party.
Posted by Anonymous : 7/06/2006 11:28:00 AM
I'm the "flimsy rethoric" guy. I'll give you that. Calderon did use fear in the campaign, but not to an extent unseen in other elections, in any country. Besides, shameful as that may be, Obrador pandered a much worse weapon, and one that the Bush administration has used more than fear: Hate. Calderon said: "You should fear this candidate", while Obrador said: "You should hate not only this candidate, but these people too". You have to give me that. And the "flimsy rethoric" bit: I saw the debate. I sincerely believe that the the poor must be first. I sincerely wanted to listen to Obrador. I really found scant evidence to show he had a plan. It is human nature to need a messiah, and Obrador tried to exploit that by becoming a charismatic leader, more than a man with a plan. Calderon might not be as photogenic as Obrador, or have that stern, inquisitive squint the media love so, but he does have a clean record, and he answered rationally and completely.
Posted by Anonymous : 7/07/2006 09:24:00 AM
Post a Comment
(Anonymous comments are enabled).