Mexico 2012

[jaichind]

http://www.prepchiapas2012.com/home_gobernador.cfm

is PREP for Chiapas. Just found it

[jaichind]

Is Manuel Velasco from the Green Party.  So far he is getting 37% of the vote under the Green Line and only 19% of the vote under the PRI line.

The Green Party-PRI-PANAL candidate Manuel Velasco is winning in a landslide. He is only 31yo! His grandfather (who was a very prominent physician) was governor in the 1970s.

[jaichind]

I get that.  I was more asking about the preception of the PRI in Chiapas.  I wonder if this is case of the voting population having a positive impression of the candidate but does not support the party and voting for him under the Green Party line is a way of they saying to themselves "I did not vote for the PRI"

Remember: this is not a real green party. It's just a convenient line.

[jaichind]

With 79% counted, and after I normalize againist the null votes it is
PRI      38.23
PRD     33.42
PAN     25.98
PANAL   2.43

I had predicted
PRI      38
PRD     30
PAN     29
PANAL   3


In the Senete and House votes after I normalize out the null votes it is so far

Senete
PRI            38.30
PRD           29.61
PAN           27.91
PANAL         4.01

House
PRI           39.17
PRD          29.08
PAN          27.23
PANAL        4.38

ALMO for sure ran ahead of PRD and PRI got less than polls had expected.  It seems that this is a result of anti-PRI tactical voting from PAN and independent/PANAL voters which benfited ALMO.  At the start of the campaign this was not expected as the thinking was a pro-PRI anti-ALMO tactical voting would take place.  This did seem to take place but it also seems that anti-PRI tactical voting took place as well.  Both trends seems to have hurt PAN.  I took this anti-PRI tactical voting into account in my prediction but I seems to have unestimated it.  I was right in predicting 4% for PANAL in the Prez vote in the sense that the PANAL base does seem to be 4% (looking at the Senete and House votes) but I failed to take into account correctly tactical voting by PANAL supporters.

[jaichind]

I agree this does not fit conventional thinking, but how else can we explain AMLO running ahead of PRD vote for Senate and House.  It had to come from somewhere.  One could argue that PRI voters voted for AMLO but why would they do that when everyone knows PRI will win (unlike in 2006)

It seems that this is a result of anti-PRI tactical voting from PAN and independent voters which benfited ALMO. 

tactical voting?

Also PAN voting AMLO....nope.

[jaichind]

Looking at the vote share of the PRI-Green alliance in the Congress vote and knowing the 42% rule it is unlikely PRI-Green alliance will get a majority in the Congress let alone PRI alone.  Also PRI-Green alliance underperformed relative to 2009 this time around for the Congress.  I would say overall, PRI has underperformed polls in this election.

[jaichind]

It seems like as the vote count continues, ALMO is losing vote share and Nieto is gaining vote share.

[jaichind]

My understanding is that in Mexico politics there is an relative obsession with the total number of votes.  With that in mind it seems that Nieto will break the all time record of number of votes set back in 1994 by Zedillo of the PRI who got 17.18 million votes.  Nieto is on track to hit almost 19 million.

[jaichind]

With roughly 92% of the votes counted, after normalizing out the null votes

For Prez
PRI         38.83
PRD        32.62
PAN        26.08
PANAL      2.38

For Senate
PRI         38.91
PRD        29.08
PAN        27.80
PANAL      3.94  

For Congress
PRI         39.71
PRD        28.56
PAN        27.28
PANAL      4.31

[jaichind]

I have some questions on seat allocation for the senate

So is it true that for each state or federal district, the party with highest vote gets 2 senators and the second place party gets one ?

For the 32 national senators-at-large, is that allocated based on total vote or do they break it down within each circunscripción? My understanding is they do it for the country as a whole.  And is there something a 8% or 42% rule like they do in the Congress at large seat allocation? My understandings is there is no such rule. 

[jaichind]

It seems the alliance between PRI and Greens (PVEM) is incomplete.  It only held in 10 out of 32 states for the senate and 199 out of 300 seats in Congress.  Looking over the results it seems the lack of an alliance cost PRI/PVEM 6 first place finishes in the Senete and a couple of dozen FTFP seats in the Congress.

[jaichind]

Looking over the Prez vote results in different states, it seems Baja California votes shares of the 4 parities came the closest to mimicing the national vote shares.  This is very interesting since based on what I know Baja California should be a PAN stronghold but in this election it seems to be trending away from PAN.

[jaichind]

Looking at the breakdown of the Senate and Congress seats at
http://www.redpolitica.mx/congreso/gamboa-camacho-gil-y-manlio-van-al-congreso

Revealed something interesting

For the Senete, the normalized vote share are
PRI/PVEM     39.16
PRD             28.94
PAN             27.83

For the Congress, the normalized vote share are
PRI/PVEM     39.93
PRD             28.40
PAN             27.23

Yet the seat breakdown are
Senate
PRI/PVEM      62
PRD              27
PAN              38

Congress     240
PRD            125
PAN            116

Note that PRD beat PAN by about the same margin in vote share in both Houses but fell far behind PAN
terms of seat count for the Senete at the same time begin significantly ahead of PAN in seat for Congress.

I looked into why this is.  It really comes down to two effects.  One, PRD vote is much more concentrated in DF and other states in the South where the number of states are few but have greater population, while PAN is weak in the South and strong in the North where the states are many but contain fewer population.  Since Senete seats are driven by 3 seats to each state, PRD suffers relatively.  Another effect is the result of breakdowns in PRI PVEM in terms of alliances.  PRI and PVEM only had an alliance in 10 out of the 32 states but was able to have an alliance in 199 out of 300 House seats.  Split for sure cost PRI PVEM.  Out of the 10 states where they had an alliance it won 8 out of 10.  Out of the 22 states where their splot was split, they had won 10 out of 22.  The PRI PVEM vote split cost it 7 seats.  PRI PVEM, had their votes been combined,  could have come in first in AGUASCALIENTES, COAHUILA, QUERÉTARO, SAN LUIS POTOSÍ, and YUCATÁN.  PRI PVEM could have place second instead of third in BAJA CALIFORNIA and TLAXCALA had their votes been combined.  In six cases, PAN benifited by having an extra seat at the expense of PRI PVEM and in BAJA CALIFORNIA the PRI PVEM seat was lost to PRD.  This pushed up the seats of PAN and opened an even greater gap with PRD.

[jaichind]

IFE results are out.  My FPTP numbers are from PREP and from final results I infered the at large seats.

Congress
PRI+     240 = 177 (FPTP)  + 63 (at large)
PRD+    136 =   70 (FPTP)  + 66 (at large)
PAN+    114 =   53 (FPTP)  + 61 (at large)
PANAL    10 =    0  (FTPT) + 10 (at large)

Senete
PRI+      61 = (18*2)(first place*2)+12(second place) + 13( at large)
PRD+     28 = (6*2) (first place *2)+ 7(second place) + 9 (at large)
PAN      38 = (8*2)(first place*2) + 13(second place) + 9 (at large)
PANAL    1 = 1 (at large)

Using the 8% rule, 240 for PRI+ seems to make sense. PREP has PRI vote share in Congress to be 31.87% and PVEM to be 6.08%.  Null vote was 4.88% and parties less that 3% was .01%. So (31.87+6.08)/(1-.0488-.001)= 39.94% + 8% = 47.94%.  240/500 = 48% so that matches.

For Senate it seems they just did a straight up distribution of at large seats based on vote share. For senate there was 5.59% null vote and .01% votes for parites that came below 3%.  So normalized vote share for at large would be
PRI+   (31.18+5.72)/(1-.0559-.001) = 39.13% *32 = 12.5
PRD+ (18.71+4.62+4.01)/(1-.0559-.001) = 28.99% *32 = 9.3
PAN  (26.34)/(1-.0559-.001) = 27.93% *32  = 8.9

As I mentioned before, PRI and PVEM not having alliances in 22 out of the 32 states cost it a Senete majority.  Had they been allied in all 32 states and vote transfer is perfect (I agree that this is a bold assumption), then PRI+ would have 7 more Senete seats (5 from PAN and 2 from PRD+)

[jaichind]

See

http://www.eluniversal.com.mx/notas/862243.html

For some reason PRI/PVEM got 251 out of 500 seats in the new Congress.  Based on the 8% rule I did not think this makes sense as PRI/PVEM did not get 42% of the vote.  I assume it had to do with the allocation of FPTP seats between PRI and PVEM.  It could be a lot of them got assigned to PVEM leaving PRI getting a less of them and then when the 8% rule got applied to PRI it was able to get more at large seats, giving PRI+PVEM 251 seats.