Mexico: You Have Seen the Election Fraud Movie, Now Read the Book


Thousands of votes per 50 precincts, in the order received by the regional vote-tallying centers in Mexico’s July 2, 2006 national election. The perfectly regular spikes indicate the operation of an algorithm used to massage the data, a Mexican physicist has concluded. The quick count was conducted by Hildebrando, a tech firm owned by Calderón’s brother in law, hired without competitive bidding by Mexico’s IFE, the elections commission. Mexico’s IFE hired AC Nielsen to rebut an earlier analysis of this kind, but this latest analysis does not rely on Benford’s Law, as I understand it — Nielsen’s point of FUD attack. NMM, which has hitherto supported only the minimum premise — recount all the votes and then conclude whether fraud was committed — now believes the preponderance of the evidence shows that Calderón’s victory was as phony as Brozo the Ambush Interview Clown’s fright wig. See Mexico: Time to Burn the Ballots
.

The chapter on PREP begins by analyzing the “premature results” of the PREP program, those strange reports of results by precinct that were time-stamped at the vote-collection sites on July 1, a day before the election (73 precincts) with 1,455 of them time-stamped on July 2, but at a time prior to the close of voting.

The Economía Moral column in La Jornada (Mexico) has suggested reading to go along with the release of Mandoki’s Fraude today.

The film’s producers are reporting to La Jornada that radio stations are refusing to run the spots the film’s distributors bought to promote the theatrical debut.

En estas semanas dos importantes testimonios de lo ocurrido en las elecciones presidenciales del año pasado nos brindarán la posibilidad de recordar y profundizar en ese gran trauma: la película de Luis Mandoki, Fraude México 2006, que hoy se estrena. Mucho menos conocido, está circulando, con dificultades, el libro de Pedro Antonio Martínez (PM), Las huellas del fraude (edición ciudadana, 2007, 234 pp.). PM es uno de los integrantes del grupo de “matemáticos” que el año pasado presentamos un grupo de trabajos analíticos ante el TEPJF (Tribunal Electoral del Poder Judicial de la Federación) como prueba del fraude. Además del último capítulo del más reciente libro de AMLO (La mafia nos robó la Presidencia, Grijalbo, 2007) donde se presentan importantes datos (y otros elementos) y que comenté en Economía Moral del 20/07/07 y del n° 24 de Desacatos (“México 2006: elecciones y polarización política”, CIESAS), el texto de PM es el primero con análisis sistemáticos sobre el tema.

In recent weeks two important witnesses to what happened in last year’s presidential elections have provided us with a chance to remember and deepen our knowledge of this national trauma: The film from Luis Mandoki, Fraud: Mexico 2006, which debuts today [is one of them.] The other, much less known, and circulating with difficulty, is a book by Pedro Antonio Martinéz (PM), The Traces of the Fraud (Ed. Ciudadania, 2007, 234 pp.) PM one of our group of “mathematicians” who last year presented a series of analyses to the federal elections tribunal (TEPJF, or TRIFE) with evidence of the fraud. Along with the final chapter of AMLO’s most recent book (The Mafia Stole the Presidency From Us, Grijalbo, 2007), where important data (and other elements) are presented, and which I commented on in this space on July 20, 2007, and Issue No. 24 of Desacatos (“Mexico 2006: Elections and Political Polarization,” CIESA), it is one of the first to offer a systematic analysis of the subject.

La obra consta de cuatro capítulos: 1) llenado de las actas en las casillas; 2) el PREP (Programa de Resultados Electorales Preliminares); 3) los cómputos distritales; y 4) el TEPJF. En el prólogo se hace un sucinto relato de todas las ilegalidades y suciedades que ocurrieron antes, durante y después de la elección. En el capítulo 1 se muestran ejemplos de actas (con fotos) en las cuales: se disminuyeron los votos por AMLO, hay confusiones y errores, se sumaron los votos por presidente con los de diputados y senadores, y se le inventaron votos al PAN. El autor optó por dar ejemplos de 42 casillas (0.6 por ciento de un universo de 6 mil 600 con irregularidades similares), más que por el análisis sistemático de datos. Logra con ello transmitir que más que errores hubo dolo en muchos casos. Concluye que si se hubiesen corregido esas casillas la diferencia real entre el PAN y la CBT (Coalición por el Bien de Todos) disminuiría en 3 mil 142 votos (85 votos por casilla en una elección en la cual la diferencia se podría explicar por un solo voto de AMLO transferido al PAN en cada casilla).

The book is divided into four chapters: (1) Ballot-stuffing in the precincts; (2) The PREP preliminary vote tabulation program; (3) the district computations; (4) TRIFE. In the prologue he sets forth a succinct account of all the illegalities and dirty tricks that occurred before, during and after the election. In Chapter 1, examples of precinct reports (with photos) are shown in which: votes were subtracted from AMLO, there are confusions and errors, votes for president were added together with votes for deputies and senators, and votes for PAN are fabricated. The author cose to provide examples from 42 precincts (0.6 percent of the universe of 6,600 with similar irregularities) rather than focus on systematic analysis of the data. With this, he manages to communicate the fact that, more than errors, these constituted fraud in many cases. He concludes that if these precincts had been corrected, the real difference between PAN and the CBT coalition would have shrunk to 3,142 votes (85 votes per precinct in an election in which the difference is a matter of a single vote for AMLO transferred to Calderón, on average, in every single precinct in the election).


Our official foreign policy here at NMM is that Mexico is currently governed, at a minimum, by someone whose beans were never counted properly, in an election legitimized by the people who refused to count them.

Which is a hell of a way to run a “modernizing democracy” haunted by the specter of “guerrillas in the mist,” as the Wall Street Journal put it.

Want people to give up on democracy and start running AK-47s in from Guatamala? Make a farse out of the careful beancounting that legitimates the result and provides confidence in the fairness of political competition.

Ask Enron: You can account creatively all you want to, but when the margin calls come and you do not have the cash on hand, you are fucked. But not as fucked as your employees, shareholders and creditors.

En el capítulo 2, PM señala que el PREP “fue manejado para distorsionar la percepción que el público tenía del resultado”, para “propagar la idea de que el PAN ganaba de principio a fin”. Pero eso, dice, dejó múltiples huellas. En el capítulo 3, sostiene que, concluido el PREP, “tocaba ahora a los funcionarios del IFE sostener a cualquier precio la ventaja ilegítima del PAN”. El capítulo 2 inicia analizando las “actas prematuras” del PREP, extrañas actas que tienen fecha de recepción en los lugares de captura del 1° de julio, día anterior a las elecciones, (73 actas) y mil 455 actas del 2 de julio, pero hora de recepción anterior al cierre de casillas. La ventaja del PAN en el primer grupo es enorme (52 por ciento vs 21 por ciento de AMLO). PM supone que no son errores, ya que el propósito era que el PREP mostrase desde el principio que el PAN ganaba y para ello era necesario que hubiera algunas actas preparadas favorables a Acción Nacional desde antes del inicio del programa.

In Chapter 2, PM states that the PREP count was “manipulated to distort public perception of the result,” in order to “propagate the idea that PAN was winning from start to finish.” The chapter begins by analyzing the “premature results” of the PREP program, strange precinct reports that were time-stamped at the vote-collection sites on July 1, a day before the election (73 reports) and 1,455 of them time-stamped on July 2, but at a time prior to the close of voting. PAN’s advantage in the first group is enormous (52% vs. 21% for the CBT candidate). PM supposes that these are not errores, given that the purpose was for PREP to show from the beginning that PAN was winning, for which it was necessary for some results to be prepared in advance that were favorable to PAN from the beginning of the PREP count.

Have I mentioned that the firm hired by the federal election commission to conduct the PREP program was owned by the brother-in-law of one of the candidates, and had numerous other government contracts with the Fox administration?

Hildebrando? Heard of them?

A lo largo de la captura (y difusión) del PREP se utilizaron varios estratagemas o algoritmos, dice PM, que en conjunto buscaron afectar la percepción del electorado. Así, las casillas capturadas hasta las 8 de la noche, cuando empezaron a hacerse públicos los datos, provenían sólo de 46 distritos de 18 entidades de las cuales 11 se inclinarían al final por el PAN y sólo 7 por AMLO (si no hubiese habido algoritmo, se esperaría que la proporción fuese similar a las 16 entidades ganadas por cada uno). Esto lo lleva a concluir que hubo una maniobra orquestada desde antes de la elección, es el hecho que el mismo sesgo a favor del candidato del PAN se presenta en casi todos los estados, lo que según PM no puede ser explicado por la diferencia entre el medio urbano y el rural en las preferencias y las horas de llegada de la información. Aunque la complejidad de este capítulo requeriría análisis detallados que rebasan el espacio disponible, recordemos el grave asunto de las 11 mil actas inconsistentes (8.5 por ciento del total) en las cuales gana López Obrador y el PAN queda en tercer lugar y que se ocultaron (ya cerrado el PREP) hasta que AMLO denunció su ausencia.

Throughout the data collection, and publication, of the PREP results, various stratagems or algorithms were used, PM says, which as a whole sought to affect public perception. Thus, precincts counted before 8 pm, when the data began to be made public, came from only 46 districts in 18 states, 11 of which inclined toward PAN and only 7 toward AMLO (if their had been no algorithm in place, the proporition would have been closer to the 16 states won by each candidate in the end). This leads PM to conclude that there was a maneuver that was orchestrated before the election, by the fact that the same margin in favor of the PAN candidate is present in nearly every state, which PM does not believe can be explained by the difference between rural and urban settings in the preferences and the time at which the information arrived. Although the complexity of this chapter required detailed analysis far beyond the space permitted, let us recall the serious fact that 11,000 precinct results reports (8.5% of the total) in which AMLO was winning and PAN was in third place were hidden (after the PREP count was already concluded) until AMLO noted their absence.

Muy interesante resulta la clasificación en 5 fases de los datos del PREP que lleva a cabo PM, de las cuales el PAN gana 2, AMLO 2 y el PRI 1. Concluye este capítulo diciendo: “Hemos mostrado las huellas de la serie de mecanismos que se organizaron alrededor del PREP, para que la mayoría de las actas donde ganaba el PAN (gracias a votantes o a funcionarios de casilla) llegaran rápidamente a los centros distritales y fueran capturadas de inmediato, mientras que muchas actas donde ganaba la CBT fueran capturadas lentamente (¿serían los capturistas o el programa de captura?)”.

It is very interested to note the classification of the PREP data, in five phases, that PM carries out, of which PAN wins 2, AMLO 2 and the PR 1. He concludes this chapter saying: “We have shown the traces of a series of mechanisms organized around the PREP count, in order that the majority of the a cts in which PAN was winning (either thanks to voters or to ballot-stuffing precinct officials) would arrive quickly to the district centers and immediatedly be entered into the PREP system, while many of the precincts in which the CBT was winning were entered into the system only after a delay (was it the people entering the data or was it the data-capture software?)

Dicho esto, anuncia que en el capítulo 3 se verá cómo “le tocaba ahora a los funcionarios del IFE sostener a cualquier precio la ventaja ilegítima del PAN: se hicieron de la vista gorda ante actas con votaciones notablemente ilegales favorables al PAN; recontaron casillas donde había votos que beneficiaban a la CBT (o donde el PAN tenía votos ‘de menos’) o capturando dolosamente los votos de la CBT, mientras que agregaban votos inexistentes al PAN”. Al concluir este apartado señala que se constató cómo funcionarios distritales del IFE no corrigieron el error o el dolo observado en las casillas e incluso lo certificaron en ciertos casos; cómo algunas actas fueron sustituidas y cómo la captura distrital contribuyó a aumentar falazmente la diferencia (en total, 97 votos en cada una de las 41 casillas usadas como ilustración). Libro interesante que habré de seguir analizando junto con la película de Mandoki y el número 24 de Desacatos. El libro sólo puede adquirirse en la librería Morgana (Colima 143A, colonia Roma) y Foro Shakespeare (Zamora 7, Col. Condesa). ¡2 de julio no se olvida!

That said, they announce that in Chapter 3 we will see how “it was up to IFE officials now to maintain, at any cost, the illegitimate advantage of PAN: they turned a blind eye to glaring illegalities in voting tallies that favored PAN; they recounted precincts in which voting favored the rival CBT (or where PAN had votes “missing”) or CBT votes were recorded fraudulently, while adding nonexistent votes for PAN.” Upon concluding this aside, they point out how IFE district officis did not correct errors or fraud observed at the precincts, and even ratified it in certain cases; how some statements results were swappedout, and how the district vote-count contributed to increasing the fraudulent difference (in all, 97 votes in each of the 41 precincts sampled are used as an illustration). It is a very interesting book that should be read carefully alongside Mandoki’s film and … The book can only be purchased at the Morgana and the Foto Shakespeare bookstores. Let July 2 not be forgotten!

On books that are hard to come by, see also


Vote-count procedures of Mexico’s IFE. Click to zoom.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s