ALL VOTES MUST BE COUNTED, ALWAYS
DEMOCRACY REQUIRES THAT ANY SYSTEM OF VOTE-COUNTING HAVE AS ITS SINGULAR & PERVASIVE FUNCTION TO DETERMINE THE WILL OF THE VOTER
4 September 2006

It is no secret that Mexico's electoral system is undergoing a period of extreme strain and an important test of resilience. While the ruling PAN party's candidate Felipe Calderón enjoys a narrow but contested lead, challenger López Obrador seeks to effect at least a full hand-count of all ballots cast, or a reversal of the election results on the grounds of fraud. The stickiest part of the controversy is what justifies examining only a small percentage of the contested ballots.

The argument tends to fall to practicality, logistics and the all-important "trust in the system". It's true that a democratic system is far more fragile when people suspect it is not in fact democratic. But it is not necessarily true that a complicated logistical undertaking will undermine voter confidence or the integrity of the system itself. In fact, it may be that voter confidence can only be maintained or uplifted by witnessing a system in action which is determined not to serve itself or those who manage it, but to serve very specifically, and religiously, the voter.

It's not that there is never a case where a partial recount, both legally and scientifically, is not the most advisable and reliable solution to an electoral conflict: there must be some level of confidence in the electoral system established ahead of the elections, by law. But, there must be a genuine and persistent awareness of the fact that without knowing the will of every individual voter, the election has to some extent failed to achieve its legally plotted and democratically necessary purpose.

Can it be said that the position of López Obrador and his supporters depends on a manipulation of the rhetoric of democracy and is somehow indicative of a disrespect for the law? Maybe in the case of a political leader; such a manipulation is hardly shocking or rare. But, if Calderón and his supporters, or the election officials deciding the issue, would like to show this, they can only do so by demonstrating the actual intent of the voters, and they can only do this by engaging in a comprehensive and demonstrative count.

Ultimately, there is no reason not to continue counting the votes cast in Mexico's presidential election. There are mass demonstrations in the streets, allegations of widespread fraud, vast differences of opinion between distinct camps of "independent observers", and official monitoring took place at only a few hundred out of tens of thousands of polling stations.

There is civil unrest in Oaxaca, where protesters are demanding the resignation of the state governor, after he apparently ordered security forces to attack a crowd of demonstrators. And now, the challenger for the presidency, Andrés Manuel López Obrador, says if the system fails to carry out an adequate count of all the votes, he will form an "alternative" government, and lead from outside the official halls of power. There is no clear image of what this means for Mexico and whether it could lead to real civil conflict.

Speaking to a crowd of thousands of his supporters, he has said "We will not allow an illegitimate and illegal government to be installed in our country." The BBC reports the crowd was "deafening", as his supporters chanted "Vote by vote, polling station by polling station."

It is easy to see why a candidate who currently leads, without a clear examination of all the ballots cast, would feel compelled to oppose the full, openly observed and documented recount of votes. But the problem is that without that count, there is simply no way to know whether there has been fraud or whether an error has occurred. Trusting a "system" of democratic government, is necessary for the continued functioning of a democratic system, but trusting a system to "know" the results without examining the ballots is not, strictly speaking, democracy.

The very serious problem with Felipe Calderón's position is that it gives legitimate rhetorical weight to the opposition's demands. There is no clear legal basis for arguing that a partial count is more complete than a full count or that it is "proof" there was no fraud. Calderón's argument has only one end: to maintain his lead. That is not trust in democracy, and proclaiming that position fuels the anger and mistrust felt by those who oppose his ascendancy.

Absent the full recount, executed in certain conditions likely to yield a more reliable and verifiable count, it is not possible to know which party (each arguing its own victory) has the legitimate argument. The federal electoral tribunal has only made this more difficult by finding that a partial recount was sufficient to determine that no fraud occurred, when specific districts where fraud was alleged were not in fact examined at all.

The situation is now tense enough that some alarmists are worrying publicly about whether the opposition will actually attempt not only to form an "alternative" government, but to actually "govern from the streets", a hypothesis which conjures fears of civil war. It is for this reason that Mexico's top electoral officials should consider very seriously whether their ruling demonstrates a genuine faith in democracy as such, or whether it is slanted toward a kind of mystical belief in "the system", which has obviously not yet convinced a vast number of Mexican citizens. [s]

TOP MEXICO ELECTORAL COURT TO DECIDE ELECTION TUESDAY
MEXICO'S FEDERAL ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL, WHOSE RULINGS CANNOT BE APPEALED, HAS SAID IT WILL DECLARE A WINNER OR ANNUL VOTE EARLY TUESDAY
5 September 2006

Mexico's special court, established to resolve electoral protests in a constitutional process, has announced it will decide what the final official count is for the 2 July balloting, and whether or not the established count is valid. Felipe Calderón currently holds a 240,000 vote advantage in the official tally, and nothing points to the court annulling the election. [Full Story]

PRESS FREEDOM IS EVERYONE'S FREEDOM
WHERE PRESS IS UNDER ATTACK FROM GOV'T EVERYONE'S FREEDOM IS JEOPARDIZED
4 July 2006

The freedom of the press is the freedom of the American people. Not its guarantor, not a metaphorical representation of freedom as an idea, not even merely a mainstay of a free system. A free and independent press is American liberty at work, building and defending itself against the slide toward secret or arbitrary exercise of power, as conceived within or beyond the legal process. [Full Story]

CLIMATE OF SECRECY PUTS DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES IN BACK SEAT
24 April 2006

An insistence on near absolute secrecy threatens to undermine two vital elements of the security of the United States: 1) the democratic process itself, without which there can be no system to secure; 2) the intellectual dissent which is necessary to enforce truly reasoned thinking in planning of operations and information analysis. [Full Story]

FEAR NOT THE ACT OF VOTING (FEAR ITS BEING WILLFULLY DIMINISHED)
1 November 2004

51.3% of the voting age population of the United States took part in the 2000 presidential vote. That was 3.8% less than in 1992, and 11.8% lower than in the 1960 presidential election. But in between, there has been a consistent pattern of turnout under 60%, a disturbing if enigmatic aspect of American political life. Some have said it means the US is a democracy without the people. And polls show that a significant majority of American citizens believe the government does not represent their interests. [Full Story]