Talk:2006 Mexican general election

message: I've seen vandalism all over the internet now, including Wikipedia. Yesterday (Thursday June 29), the wikipedia sites of Felipe Calderon, Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, and Vicente Fox where vandalized proclaiming AMLO the winner of the election to take place on Sunday July 2.
Since the election is clear to be very close, I suggest that we as wikipedians try to prevent declaring a winner before the IFE does so. The official winner will be announced on Wednesday, so I think that the following conditions of valid editing to proclaim the winner should be met before declaring a winner in wikipedia:
1) If all seeminly losing candidates accept their defeat, then we can proclaim a winner.
2) If the IFE declares a winner on July 2 at night with more than 2% of difference and more than 90% of the ballots counted, then we can proclaim a winner.
3) If none of the above is met, then we should wait until Wednesday until the IFE proclaims an official winner.
What do you think?
Hari Seldon 15:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I say we do the sensible thing and wait until IFE makes an official statement. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 12:49, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed 100%. The wiki is not a crystal ball; and so when both the IFE and AP say it's too close to call, we shouldn't be calling it here. Jon 13:39, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Winner 

message: There should be something in the article saying whether a candidate needs a plurality or majority to win ie will there be a runoff if no candidate wins over 50% of the vote? Homey 03:38, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that results will soon be declared, I think it should then become obvious from the results described in teh article. No runoff will happen. Only a plurality is needed. —Cuiviénen 04:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Currently, Univision reports that Calderon holds less than a three-point lead, but only with 28 or so percent of the votes tallied. So, no clear winner for now. Titoxd(?!?) 05:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This was predicted weeks in advance. The IFE will not give an official result until probably the end of the week, as the official manual count will begin Wednesday. Mexico still doesn't have a President Elect, and until the IFE says otherwise, a statement that says such and such, or such and other candidate is the President Elect must be regarded as vandalism. Hari Seldon 06:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just actively revert unsourced additions, and keep reverting if sources are not added, as it would be indeed vandalism if it were false. Titoxd(?!?) 06:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Runoff?

message: First, I'd recomend deleting all references to the internal polls taken by each political party. It's hard to see them as being any more accurate than internal polls taken by the major parties in US elections. Second, they go back way too far in time; I'd sugest that only the 3rd party opinion polls taken within a few days of the poll blackout dates be kept because voters change their minds over time. Jon 13:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Poll table to lengthly

message: Shouldn't there be some results for the legislative seats by now, at least for the least competive of the districts? Jon 16:41, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Legislature election

message: The Socialist campaign slogan, "Por el bien de todos, primero los pobres", is translated here as "For the well-being of all, poor people first". But wouldn't a more appropriate, accurate and better-sounding translation be, "For the well-being of all, first the poor"?
: That's right. Fixed. Titoxd(?!?) 01:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Socialist slogan poorly translated? 

message: But the Mexican stock exchange rose 4.77% today as result of the elections. Titoxd(?!?) 01:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Its mentionable, it will probally drop when AMLO challenges the results. The exchange is much more viotale than American exchanges and hinged widly on wether the more business friendly Calderón would win or lose to the more socialistic AMLO.--mitrebox 13:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not really sure where to mention it... 

message: Let's clean up this edit, please
---
<Begin cut for cleanup>
Recently several irregularities have been noted on the proces of preliminary results <ref> http://senderodelpeje.blogspot.com/2006/07/imagen-ms-clara.html<ref>. Polling station-level incongruencies, in which several votes have been aded to the rulling party's candidate. While all theese irregularities will be cleared when a recount is made starting Wednesday July 5th, the apparition of theese presents serious doubts to the legitimacy of IFE.
<End cut for cleanup>   --Rednblu 03:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Too much POV, the claim of irregularities is already mentioned in the article. Titoxd(?!?) 05:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit cut to here for cleanup 

message: In the articles current form, for the beginning of parliment, they only sum up to 498; not 500. (The disolution of parliment number is fine.) This would seem to indicate either an error in some of the parties results or else 2 seats left unassigned at the time. (If this were for the US; I'd guess the winning candidate also ran successfully for governor in at least one case; two candidates post humously winning in the same congressional election would be unheard of here.) Jon 13:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I went to the source article on the 2003 Election and found the source of the error. It was simply a math error there. I've fixed the count there and here. Jon 15:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lower House Comparisons election 2003 count doesn't add up 

message: The other Mexican election articles are [Year #] Mexican General Election and not Mexican General Election, year #.
Accordingly this article needs renamed to match. This is however further complicated by someone having created a much briefer article called 2006 Mexican General Election that isn't as good as this one.
The merge tags don't seem to cover well what really needs to happen which is merge that content into this article but use that articles name. Jon 15:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Name of this article & merge needed

message: I added it (in place of a more general current event) and another editor deleted the tag entirely, not even placing a "current" one. The "future election" tag is for both ongoing and future elections. Until the results are final, this is an ongoing election and therefore the future election tag should be included. Jon 18:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: This article needs the future election tag

message: See . I'd say this  deserves a mention somewhere in the article  Btyner 02:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be fine with adding it in, but it'd be more convincing if we could cite a mainstream news source; if The Raw Story is the only source, that's a bit more questionable. --Delirium 04:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Searching the referenced Retuers article (mainly about ALMO wanting to sue) I only found this The daily newspaper El Universal reported 10 ballot boxes and a polling station report were found in a garbage dump in a poor neighborhood on the edge of Mexico City. Note it doesn't say if the boxes contained filled out ballots, or even if the boxes were the sealable ones that ballots are placed in and sent to be counted (which most certanly would be numbered for each polling district and would be tracked), if the boxes were for blank ballots and were now not required. The report on the other hand may be an initial report or one of many copies. I don't know but I think the officials at the polls don't count the ballots (or even have time to) so the report likely only contains infomation on the number of persons voting, and how everything went. I know it sounds like a lot of excuses but there are just a lot of other possiblities and I don't think anyone reading this article has a lot of education in the offical procedures of handeling ballots for Mexican presidential elections. --mitrebox 05:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's irrelevant whether the boxes were not required anymore: all paperwork, used or unused, must be accounted for by the end of the election according to law. Also, to answer your doubt, ballots are counted by the officials at the polls before representatives of all parties. Results are tallied and written down (in both number and letter, say 50 and "fifty") on paperwork provided by IFE (the famous actas). Once this is done for one ballot box, the votes are sealed inside a folder in front of party representatives and the acta is attached to it. What they apparently found was both actas not accounted for and ballot boxes. La Jornada covered this story on their front page a couple days ago (). It is a "mainstream" source, albeit one with a marked leftist tendency. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 17:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Get a better source saying that ballot boxes with ballots were found in a dump and it goes in...and I have to wonder if they were for AMLO or Al Gore (j/k).  Seriously, though, if something substantive comes of this through a mainstream source, it looks good.  Otherwise, it reeks of tabloids stirring up trouble.  Besides, why would there be tossed-out ballot boxes in the one area where the political machinery is most likely controlled by AMLO's people and he had the biggest margins of victory?  That doesn't quite follow.--69.72.99.239 12:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here we go: One case in Cd Neza and one in Xalapa. Aille 16:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mexico Presidential Election Ballots Found in Dump 

message: Why has it taken days for Wikipedia administrators to admit that Obrador lost? Instead of abusing your power, you should face facts and stop omitting major news events on the main page. Tchadienne 02:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What do admins even have to do with it? Anyone could add that information. Besides, it says there, Calderon got the vote preference, it's just going to be held up in court. Titoxd(?!?) 02:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of the American press are calling the victory for PAN, but there are several dmore steps that neede to be done in Mexico, and given how the election is very close, I would not be surprised if we have to wait, like all of my countrymen did in 2000. Just relax, the admins are not trying to hide anything, we are just waiting for the official word from TRIFE. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 13:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Administrator abuse

message: For the record, TRIFE (Tribunal del Instituto Federal Electoral: Federal Electoral Institute Tribunal) doesn't exist anymore. It lost its authonomy a few years ago and became a part of the judicial power; it is now called TEPJF (Tribunal Electoral del Poder Judicial de la Federación: Electoral Tribunal of the Judicial Power of the Federation). That tribunal is the one that will declare a winner of the election.
:please provide sources.--BMF81 11:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He's right. But they still use the domain http://www.trife.org.mx/. Aille 22:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  TRIFE 

message: Maybe I don't understand how the plurinominal seats are assigned so I might be wrong. I thought plurinominal seats were assigned based on proportional representation, that is, based on the percentage of votes obtained in the general legistlative elections. Yet, how can it be that PAN, having obtained the greatest percentage of votes in the Congress is allocated only 69 PR seats, whereas PRD (and the percentage difference between PAN and PRD is small) is allocated 100? --Alonso 15:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Re your first comment: the PR deputies are not assigned in direct proportion to the national vote (but, I think, that is the system used in the Senate), but rather by means of a formula that works to ensure that the total number of seats each party gets (the 200 PR and the 300 districts combined) more accurately reflects the parties' share of the national vote. The PR deputies thus help reward parties for coming a close second in various districts. See Mixed member proportional representation. As for the total of 192, maybe the (somewhat complex) calculations weren't finished yet? Is that another function of the TRIFE/TEPJF? Aille 15:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

text: More. The MMPR article says it is used for the Chamber of Deputies, but Elections in Mexico says it's parallel voting. Take your pick. Aille 16:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I didn't know about the mixed-reward stuff. Whatever it is, the results obtained from El Universal (link above) make more sense (as parties seem to get PR seats in proportion to votes) than those reported in this wiki article. I insist, not only the assignation of seats seems irrational (in my opinion) but it adds up to 245; and that cannot be so: PR deputies should sum up to 200. --Alonso 22:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

text:  Right. I think I see where the problem is: on the table, the FPP and PR results for the two alliances are inverted: if those two columns are swapped, the totals reach 200 & 300. And that's supported by the (preliminary) numbers here. I'll fix that on the template now. Aille 23:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: After reviewing both articles, (mixed member proportional representation and parallel voting, I realize that El Universal's results might not be accurate either, so we'll have to wait for IFE's final results. But at least I learned how the Mexican electoral system works: like parallel voting, proportionality is only confinded to the plurinominal section of the congress (that is, an overall proportionality of the legislature is not achieved, as it would be the case with MMP); however, like MMP the votes of the party that wins the FPP seat by first majority are discounted from the parallel voting; and then it does make sense that the second majority party would get more plurinominal seats than the first majority party. And that's what happened on the previous legislature (2003): , where PAN got more PR seats than PRI as the second majority (or first minority). --Alonso 23:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Congressional elections

message: I see exit polls mentioned once in the article but without specifics, citations, results, sources, links, etc.. I would be interested in seeing that kind of info in the article. So far there is only this info in the  article, 
:"Nevertheless, front-running presidential candidates Felipe Calderón (PAN) and Andrés Manuel López Obrador (PRD) declared themselves the winners, basing their speeches on a number of private exit-polls, some quoted and some not quoted, that gave a lead within the margin of error." --Timeshifter 16:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Exit polls

message: The current challange to the legitimy of the elections should have an article of its own. The marches that Lopez Obrador has gathered are already historical. Regardless of the decision that the TEPJF makes, the current challange may create governability problems in the future.
I do not want to attach this it to the main page because it would slant the article. Maybe this article can link to the new page under a brief Controversy subheading at the end of the document .
My goal is to gather the position of the two candidates, and the position of international observers.
Then, follow with the list of the most common arguments used to challange the transparency of the election, followed by counter-arguments.
It will take me a few days to gather the information with its proper references.
:I like the idea. You should perhaps start the article with the name "2006 Mexican election controversy", and then outline the causes for the controversy and the expressions for it. Hari Seldon 20:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Page has been created. Needs more info. Help! Mexican general election 2006 controversies --A1437053 18:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal for a Legitimicy Challange page link to this one, to candidates

message: Can anyone make the list with state recount percentages more presentable? --A1437053 07:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  State Recount Numbers 

message: We made Wikipedia's home page! We made Wikipedia's home page! We made Wikipedia's home page! --A1437053 09:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Home Page 

message: Is there any particular reason this name is used in the table? It seems to me it would be better to use Felipe Calderón as is used throughout the rest of the article for consistency and clarity. Nil Einne 14:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: NB, the same also applies to Roberto Madrazo Nil Einne 14:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to me that there is no reason to have the last names in the tables, other than to have a consistent table arrangement (all candidates have only their last names shown). Perhaps the reason for doing this is to favor PRD's candidate, Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador. If we decide on showing only the first name and the first last name of the candidates in the table, then we would end up calling the PRD's candidate "Andres Lopez", and such usage is extremely controversial in Mexico. I would think the best way of dealing with this would be to use the complete name of the candidates, or agree to have no consistency in the table markers and just use the names that are more common to each candidate (Felipe Calderón, Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, and Roberto Madrazo) Hari Seldon 15:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Calderón Hinojosa 

message: This article obviously has a number of non-native English speakers as editors.  I am currently trying to bring the text into a more natural form for English readers, including removal of redundancies, simplification of extended sentences, correction of (a few) spelling mistakes, inconsistent use of tense, and other grammar related issues.  While no actual change in the meaning of the article is intended, it is possible that I may have misunderstood what was written, and made alterations that do not reflect the original information presented.  If you find such an instance, please inform me.
Anonymous Wikipedian 01:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attempts to clarify 

message: http://english.people.com.cn/200611/25/eng20061125_325062.html Should this be in the article? It's at least been received positively by the head of the lower house Jorge Zermeno... —Nightstallion (?) 14:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably. I remember the idea of a run-off being discussed by Mexican analysts a few times after the election. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 20:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll add it. —Nightstallion (?) 15:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  EU election monitors call for run-off: 

message: A google search in AMLOs site (www.amlo.org.mx) for "Alianza por el Bien de Todos" gives no hits, while a search for "Coalicion por el bien de todos" gives 26 hits. I believe the grouping originally called itself an "Alliance", but later registered the name "Coalition" (almost certainly to distinguish itself from "Alianza por México"). The copy of the coalition agreement in the PT's page,  never talks of the "Alliance", and mentiones the "Coalition" several times (with capital letters). The page should be changed, as should the relevant page in Wikipedia which also misidentifies the name. References to "the Alliance" should refere to the PRI-PVEM alliance, while references to the PRD-PT-Convergencia grouping should be to "the Coalition". Magidin 20:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alliance vs. Coalition 

message: :Image:Roberto campa on tv azteca.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Roberto campa on tv azteca.PNG

message: :Image:Pan logo.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Pan logo.PNG

message: :Image:Pan logo.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 23:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Pan logo.PNG

message: :Image:Patriciamercado.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 19:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Patriciamercado.PNG

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Mexican general election, 2006. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060822052712/http://www.latimes.com:80/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-mexico17jul17,0,1043192.story to http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-mexico17jul17,0,1043192.story
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:52, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: In most articles about elections, a candidate´s home state is the state where he/she has held important positions and not the state where he/she was born. For instance, Barack Obama was born in Hawaii, but the articles about the 2008 and 2012 elections state that his home state is Illinois. Given that AMLO was head of government of Mexico City, I think it would be appropriate to change his home state to Mexico City.
189.216.57.45 (talk) 17:07, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: In the context of mexican elections and electoral law, "Home State" is a term of art and has a specific meaning; it literally means the entity in which the candidate was born. So for Lopez Obrador, Tabasco is the appropriate place to designate as his "home state". (In order to run for Governor of a State, the individual must either establish residency or be born in the state; it is in that context that "home state", or 'estado natal', is used. In fact, when Lopez Obrador ran for head of government of Mexico City, his eligibility was challenged because his voting registration address was still listed as Tabasco six months prior to the election). Because of this, the comparison to the United States is not appropriate. Magidin (talk) 19:12, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  AMLO's home state 

message: Hi I am trying to find the source for the voter turnout from state to state. I have noticed nobody link it. Could anyone enligten me and find me the source of it? Delta049 (talk) 14:44, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: They appear to come from the (now-defunct) IFE, now kept by the INE here. Magidin (talk) 16:19, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

text: I have added the source to the page. Magidin (talk) 16:26, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you Magidin. I didnt expect answer this soon. You have been real helpfull not only to my research but as well as to this wiki page Delta049 (talk) 22:28, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is the source for the state numbers