Really not much to say about this segment. Much of the footage in this segment was from the videos sent to Mandoki showing voter boards around the country uncovering irregularities and what AMLO supporters would claim were overt frauds, as in the ballots that are clearly marked for the candidate but considered “spoiled ballots” and discounted.

I only half-watched  part five of Fraude Mexico 2006 — sorry — once in a while “real life” interferes with other plans.  Briefly, in this segment of the video, we see the fall-out from the initial count (the PREP) of the 2-July-2006 election vote.

The PREP is a mathematical model based on a vote sampling, which is supposed to accurately reflect the final vote.  Because Mexican ballots are hand counted, and because congressional representatives are based both on a winner take all for single districts and proportional representation for parties in multiple districts (its too complicated to go into right now) — and because in many places parties run joint tickets, and give those proportion seats based on how well the joint ticket did overall … and because things like last-minute polling and exit polling is illegal in Mexico (in this election, Fox and Sky News broadcasts were both blacked out because the two foreign cable networks refused to comply with Mexican election laws, and were reporting on the election on their English language broadcasts)  — and the media is waiting to report the results (and the candidates want to know who won)… PREP is pretty important, and watched closely.

This is where things went hay-wire in 2006.  The early returns showed a close election, but with Lopez Obrador winning with two or three percentage points above Calderon (and well ahead of the other three candidates).  Then, as the evening went on, Calderon’s percentage of the vote rose at an even pace, while Lopez Obrador’s fell.  The final PREP results led to duelling probability theories… and mathematical modelling suddenly taking on political coloration.

It was obvious early in the PREP count that something was wrong… Luis Carlos Ugalde is shown early in this segment saying getting the count out was going to take longer than expected.  Coupled with (what I still believe was an improbable) ratio of change in the sample count over the course of the evening, Calderon’s early claims of victory based on projections from software developed by his brother-in-law’s company are the best evidence that something was not right about the count.

The mathematician show in this segment’s explanation is that an unknown quantity of additional ballots were countedfrom districts that would be pro-Calderon, and an unknown quantity of ballots were subtracted from the sample in pro-AMLO districts, which would fudge the numbers. Given that the rate of change in the sample count was an even progression over time, it is difficult to believe there was not software manipulation.  The probability of this happening naturally is just too low.

At this point, Lopez Obrador’s call for counting vote by vote, ballot box by ballot box (“voto par voto, casilla par casilla”) was not that extreme — “I defended the principal of free elections”, he says.

Part 4 of the 10 part Fraude Mexico 2006 shows political tactics that are all too familiar to political watchers in the U.S.

Part 4 begins with a discussion of the “swiftboating” campaign (which attempted to link Lopez Obrador to Hugo Chavez and “caudillos of the early 20th century,” as Carlos Salinas says in an English-language speech) and what can only be described as “PACs” or special interest group advertising:  “Grupo Mexico” — privately funded by large business organizations and “Consejo Coordinador Empressario” (Business Coordinating Council) are both featured in the video.  “PACs” and outside advertising in elections were both technically illegal at the time, but the ads fell into a gray area, not covered specifically under the then-existing regulations.  After the election the ban on this type of advertising was strengthened (too late for Lopez Obrador, but an admission by the Elections Commission that these activities were tolerated during the campaign).

Mexican viewers would be familiar with the background of AMLO’s contention that bankers had it in for him… AMLO had been the most strident critic of government rescue packages for failed banks and investment houses — which allowed the top management to make a private fortune by the way.  (By the way, yesterday, I posted Thomas Black’s article from Bloomberg on the disaster this was for the Mexican economy and its implications for the U.S.). Lopez Obrador claims the bankers — and his campaign promise to investigate the frauds surrounding the bank bailout — were behind much of the negative advertsing and political intrigue.

AMLO’s feud with the banks took a slightly abusrd term when the District Assembly passed a minor regulatory bill relating to banks, which among other things required the banks to install bullet-proof glass around teller cages and, if they insisted on city policemen stationed at their branches, to pay for them.  The regulations were modeled on similar local codes from Italy and Chicago, but in Mexico City — given AMLO’s political attacks on the banks — were spun as an attack on capitalism.  This background isn’t part of the story-line, but would be known to Mexican political junkies.

What is presented in the story was AMLO’s objection to the Fox Administration’s willingness to charter a few new banks, run by families and business organizations close to the President’s party.  Banco Coppel, from here in Sinaloa (the Coppel family businesses go back to before the Revolution) is used as an example.

The election day line is at the Zocalo in the center of Mexico City.  Notice that ballots are paper (they’re actually on security paper, and printing plants have military guards around them while the ballot printing is going on), that voters have to show their credentials (and the voter rolls are updated in real time… which was quite an amazing challenge for Mexico in the 1990s, especially when you consider that there are disticts without electricity, and computer software/hardware was not as sophisticated at the time as it is now) and that the ballot boxes are transparent:  all designed to give the voters confidence that their ballots are being treated properly and the ballot boxes aren’t being stuffed.

Still… there are ways to cheat.  Esther Elba Gordilla was recorded calling the Governor of Tamaulipas discussing “creative” vote counting techniques.  The software desgined to produce the vote count was developed by Hildebrando — conveniently owned by Felipe Calderon’s brother-in-law.  Even worse, as Carmen Aristegui (sometimes of CNN, otherwise of several Mexican news organizations) discovered, the data included material such as the voters’ party preference, and was easily hackable.

Finally, there was “voter caging.”  The two elderly guys at the end of the segment were both given wrong voter information, and suspected it wasn’t by accident that they were sent to the wrong polls, or otherwise disqualified from voting.  How widespread this was is impossible to determine.

This ten minute segment of “Fraude Mexico 2006” continues Lopez Obrador’s dramatic speech to Congress, which was voting on whether or not to strip him of his position as Governor of the Federal District, and open the way for a criminal indictment on the murky hospital access road eminent domain case. AMLO accuses Fox himself of threatening democracy through his support for the “desafuero” which could lead to AMLO’s jailing on what were really very minor charges… and the loss of his political rights.  To AMLO, it seemed as if this was just an attempt to protect the “rich”.  One thing that stands out in his speech (at 01:50 in the video) — relevant right now in the United States — is his complaint that the Fox Administration sought to privatize gains, and socialize losses in the economy.

In what would become his campaign’s focus (and is still the focus of his “legitimate presidency”), AMLO also mentions the fight against privatization of PEMEX and the state electrical industries.

Vicente Fox made the argument that this was a sign that “no one is above the law,” but — given the massive street demonstrations in favor of AMLO — even Fox eventually backed down, going so far as to promise in a television address not to involve himself in the 2006 election (which, by law, Presidents aren’t supposed to do anyway… though they do).

Fox faced a hard sell, claiming his hard line on AMLO was all about democracy and legality.  Faced with massive street protests, the President backed down.

By February 2006, AMLO’s campaign was underway, and growing.  One of the more interesting aspects of this segment of the video is the AMLO version of the “Straight Talk Express”… the campaign swing through rough back country over rought back roads.  Mexico has modern communications networks — campaigning is still done the old fashioned way with stump speeches to the electorate, and flesh-pressing tours.

Although the funding given to political parties is extravagant, Mexican elections are publically financed and there are strict rules on advertising.  The series of ads calling AMLO a “liar,” a “danger to Mexico” and comparing him to Hugo Chavez were later found to be illegal … but, by then, the damage was done and the case was moot.  Not said in the film, but well known, was the role “swiftboaters” played in this election, financed by “outside organizations” (now illegal as well), and advised by Dick Morris and Texas political consultant Rob Allyn, who “translated” — or rather ghost wrote — Vicente Fox’s biography and had advised the Fox campaign in 2000.