Now you see it, now you don't - the EU report on the Mexican Election

[Update: Because context is everything, I suggest people read Jeff Morley's piece posted at the National Security Archives re the CIA's close relationship with past governments of Mexico, begging the question of the present relationship. Given the CIA's support of the upper classes and disdain for the peasants, its a safe bet the CIA favored Calderon over Obrador in the last Mexican election.]

I had to check the times and dates. Rarely do you see a story change that quickly, and in the same source.

Check out this report from the People's Daily in China from 11/25/06:

The European Union (EU) on Friday recommended Mexico to hold a second round of presidential elections to solve the conflict generated by Mexico's July 2 presidential race.

Jose Ignacio Salafranca, a deputy from the EU observer team to Mexico, made the suggestion in his team's report on the July election.

He said a second round race would broaden the advantage enjoyed by the winning candidate and thus give him greater backing.

But then check out this report, also from the People's Daily, as of 11/26/06:

The observers from the European Union (EU) submitted their report to Mexican officials on Saturday, saying Mexico's July 2 presidential elections were transparent, lawful and legitimate. Jose Ignacio Salafranca, head of the EU observers' mission, said there were irregularities but the vote results were valid.

"These elections were free, authentic and the results represent the legitimate will of the Mexican people," Salafranca said in a statement distributed by Mexico's Attorney General's Office.

"The elections complies with respect for the law, transparency and the principles of the rule of law," he said.

Whaat? There's a big difference in calling for a second election and saying the first one was fair and legal.

Is the problem with the reporting, did Salafranca change his mind, or did he say both - that the elections looked legit but to solve the perception issue they should vote again?

If anyone knows where the EU's report can be found, I'd love to see it.

I think Obrador won, based on the early evidence, and based on the money traders betting on his success. As Jim Lampley said of the American election of 2004:

At 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on Election Day, I checked the sportsbook odds in Las Vegas and via the offshore bookmakers to see the odds as of that moment on the Presidential election. John Kerry was a two-to-one favorite. You can look it up.

People who have lived in the sports world as I have, bettors in particular, have a feel for what I am about to say about this: these people are extremely scientific in their assessments. These people understand which information to trust and which indicators to consult in determining where to place a dividing line to influence bets, and they are not in the business of being completely wrong. Oddsmakers consulted exit polling and knew what it meant and acknowledged in their oddsmaking at that moment that John Kerry was winning the election.

The odds were favoring Obrador as well, at the start of the Mexican election this year:

As Sunday's election approaches, the price of Mexican bonds has been going down because of fears that López Obrador will win the race and then mismanage the national economy. And the traders on a Web site that sells futures contracts about election outcomes are bullish about a victory for the populist former Mexico City mayor.

Bond traders are worried that López Obrador, who has promised massive infrastructure projects that rely heavily on government financing, has focused too much on spending and not enough on attracting investment, said Salvador Moreno, chief economist for ING Group's Mexico division. Prices of Mexican bonds have slipped about 13 percent since March, he said.

"We think López Obrador is going to win, and he's been talking about all these big projects, and that we don't like," Moreno said."

If we really want to solve the problem at the border - how do you think our money would be better spent? Building a wall, or helping pay for a new election, conducted on machines that give paper records, and paying for an audit afterwards? Don't you think if the Mexicans had someone truly concerned with providing jobs and a higher quality of life for all, including the poor, that they would have no reason to come to America? I sure do.

When, on when can the people of the world get the representation they choose, rather than the one thrust on them in the guise of free and fair elections?

There's provocative evidence that a major attempt was made to steal the election (again) here in America in our midterm elections. But since the Democrats won, it seems unlikely that real scrutiny will occur. But there's no way the Democrats will be as popular in two years as they were this year, short of some bold legislation with a populist bent. Instead, the 4% swing observed (4% went to Republicans that should have gone to Democrats according to this study) might be enough to swing the election in 2008.

We need, Mexico needs, every election on this planet needs a way for a rigorous, substantial audit of a voter verified paper record to ensure the accuracy of our elections. We should not stop pressing for reform until this key goal is met. We need both a vertical audit and a horizontal audit - a sample of every voting district/township/precinct needs to be made, but we also need to do an apples-to-apples audit (a vertical audit) to pinpoint problems with the electronic voting count. Only an audit of 100% of the votes has a 100% chance of catching error or fraud if it occurred. But the certainty will be limited to the precincts audited ,hence the need for the separate audit.

Several individuals and groups are proposing various audit standards. I hope people will ask in their own counties how their votes are audited, and if the answer is, "they aren't," that people band together and demand a change.

Nothing is more important than our vote. No cause, no war, no terrorist attack, NOTHING. If we give up our vote, we cease to be America. I can't think of anything worse than that. And if we tolerate stolen elections in Mexico, we're culpable in the subversion of their democracy as well.

I hope the people of Mexico continue to fight for Obrador, to force the issue, to demand an accurate count. I hope they get it. I hope we get one in the races still undecided here. And I especially hope we get one in 2008.

It took six years to get the machines in place. It may take us six years to make them work properly, and we only have two left. I hope people can find a way to talk about this, write about this, learn about this, and lead on this issue. It will take so many of us to do this right.

This isn't someone else's problem, and no leaders are coming. It's up to us, individually, to find ways to lead on this issue.