AMLO is doing what Gore and Kerry should have done.

It doesn’t take a great deal of research to determine that T. L. Brink is a member of the faculty of Crafton Hills College and the University of Redlands

Not familiar with them?

Why, Crafton Hills College, with 5200 pupils in Yucaipa California “promotes learning through self-discovery and the acquisition and application of knowledge and skills.” Basically, a glorified high school.

And T. L. Brink teaches philosophy, psychology, and religion

It’s almost the same as being a professional electoral statistician.

The University of Redlands is 4200 students, and “emphasizes academic rigor, personal development and interdisciplinary studies.” Basically, a very glorified high school. And someone should tell the university T. L. Brink is on the faculty I would guess he’s stretching his resume a bit to make an instructorship or adjunct position sound better than it is. But maybe they’re just behind on their directory.

I’m sorry to be a bit condescending, but when people fly into a blog and start using pejoratives like “conspiracy theory,” they need to be reminded of who they are.

Namely, pardon my French, an ass.

I think AMLO’s demand for a recount is well justified by the various anomalies that have been mentioned in the press. The charge that he is somehow “damaging Mexico’s democracy” must be insulting to the Mexican intelligence. Rather AMLO seems to have a different idea of democracy than folks like Sergio Sarmiento. I find it superior to that of say the US Democratic party which just turned belly up in vaguely similar circumstances. Mobilizing the people–to support the legal challenge to the vote count–seems to me to be a lot closer to real democracy than the more passive vote-and-watch-TV approach. Assuming AMLO loses the recount, why not stick with the mobilization strategy? The PAN will be a minority government. They don’t deserve a carte blanche.

Unfortunately, Calderon and IFE are not so observant of the law, as shown in http://www.narconews.com/Issue42/article1967.html

Re. your comment: I guess you can say that my so-called “conspiracy theory” is more speculative than factual. From a distance, my evidence is the results supplied by the IFE and the complaints coming from the PRD. I don’t have any independent or inside information.

But all I’m saying is that, in a very tight race, “small” manipulations of the vote at the local level can make the difference. Knowing what I know about the PAN in El Bajío, I can’t give them the benefit of the doubt.

And I have to say that the argument that you provide in support of the idea that Calderón won is not very strong. At the macro level, the PREP and the sums of polling-place tallies district by district may have been consistent (in both of them, Calderón leads), but that doesn’t make either of them right.

The black box is still the relation between the polling-place tallies and the actual ballots in the packages. According to El Universal, in the cases where the packages were opened (some regions in Puebla), the ballots for López Obrador were consistently more (or the ballots for Calderón were consistently less) than the tallies recorded. And how consistent are the results above when one of them gives Calderón twice the advantage (in percent terms) than the other?

Second, at the micro level, you observed voting and counting in three precincts and saw nothing irregular. Three! And on the basis of that sample, you’re ready to jump to your conclusion? Well, forgive me, but Mexico has a recent history of electoral fraud and I’m not ready to jump to that conclusion so quickly. Neither is the New York Times, which just called to a full recount in an editorial. As they say in Mexico, with such a history — and an official razor thin difference — the point is not only “vencer” but above all “convencer.”

Let me now say one quick thing about one comment posted on your blog. There’s this tendency to blame López Obrador — or his ego — for this mess. But that’s shooting the messenger. (See Rolando Cordera’s article in yesterday’s La Jornada.) The problem of people distrusting the outcome in an election, their — if you wish — “skepticism” or even “cynicism” about politics is widespread and not unwarranted, given Mexico’s past.

The good thing about López Obrador is that he is conducting his opposition to these results within the bounds of law. His right to appeal is within the law. And his right and the right of his supporters to protest and demonstrate is also protected by the Mexican constitution. He’s not calling people to raise up in arms and overthrow the established political system.

Finally, who, who doesn’t have an ego, gets into politics? And don’t the politicians from the PAN and other parties have egos too? If having a big ego disqualified people from getting into politics, then politics would have no takers. (Tongue in cheek.)

Good luck with your blog!

At the micro level, I observed the voting and counting of the votes in three precincts, and detected no fraud.

At the macro level, I notice a great consistency between the exit polls of many different organizations, the PREP, and the current counts: all show a slight lead for Calderon. As a social scientist specializing in questionnaires

http://heuristicbooks.com

I think that attributing all of these consistencies between these separate polls and the IFE totals is more than a reasonable stretch.

Let´s admit that Calderon got more votes on Sunday.

If you want to say that the balloting was not valid because slick media duped the average voter into being afraid to vote for his own best interests (e.g., AMLO), that is another story, but don´t try to invent vote totals that don´t exist.

For a different view of the election, consult my blog

http://mexicopolitics.blogspot.com