Mexico 2006

[ag]

Calderon's 10 worst (the 6 worst are all the 6 districts in Tabasco - Madrazo's and Lopez's home state):

1. Tabasco   5. Paraiso   2,22   55,87   39,81
2. Tabasco   3. Comalcalco   3,20   59,69   34,78
3. Tabasco   2. Cardenas   3,25   56,91   37,25
4. Tabasco   1. Macuspana   3,54   53,55   40,44
5. Tabasco   6. Centro   4,22   53,72   39,30
6. Tabasco   4. Centro   4,56   57,81   35,43
7. Chiapas   3. Ocosingo   6,28   43,22   44,77 (won by Madrazo)
8. Chiapas   1. Palenque   7,72   43,12   43,71 (won by Madrazo)
9. Guerrero   5. Tlapa de Comonfort   8,15   53,48   32,38
10. Guerrero   8. Ayutla de los Libres   8,40   55,09   31,22

[ag]

Lopez top 10 (all from Mexico City):

10. Distrito Federal   16. Alvaro Obregon   22,78   63,58   7,40
9. Distrito Federal   6. Gustavo Madero   21,47   63,90   8,50
8. Distrito Federal   4. Iztapalapa   22,26   63,97   7,68
7. Distrito Federal   21. Xochimilco   16,99   67,04   9,86
6. Distrito Federal   25. Iztapalapa   18,61   67,68   7,76
5. Distrito Federal   27. Tlahuac   15,91   68,21   9,88
4. Distrito Federal   19. Iztapalapa   16,54   69,37   7,99
3. Distrito Federal   14. Tlalpan   18,11   69,39   6,96
2. Distrito Federal   1. Gustavo Madero   17,04   70,35   6,92
1. Distrito Federal   22. Iztapalapa   13,00   73,16   7,64

[ag]

Lopez's 10 worst (all won by Calderon):

1. Jalisco   3. Tepatitlan de Morelos   62,47   7,41   23,99
2. Guanajuato   5. Leon   69,93   8,54   16,00
3. Guanajuato   3. Leon   66,36   8,99   18,69
4. Guanajuato   6. Leon   65,89   9,98   18,46
5. Jalisco         2. Lagos de Moreno   57,53   11,35   24,70
6. Nuevo Leon   1. Santa Catarina   57,78   12,19   21,69
7.  Chihuahua   6. Chihuahua   58,35   12,57   22,90
8.  Guanajuato   9. Irapuato   61,30   13,48   19,08
9.  Guanajuato   7. San Francisco del Rincon   58,57   13,78   21,68
10. Nuevo Leon   10. Monterrey   56,60   13,83   23,56

[ag]

Madrazo's top 10 (note, he didn't get even 50% in any district):

10. Tabasco   5. Paraiso   2,22   55,87   39,81 (won by Lopez)
9. Yucatan   5. Ticul   42,39   14,00   39,85 (won by Calderon)
8. Tabasco   1. Macuspana    3,54   53,55   40,44 (won by Lopez)
7. Chiapas   5. San Cristobal de las Casas   12,32   39,79   40,47
6. Oaxaca   2. Teotitlan de Flores Magon   13,14   39,80   41,50
5. Oaxaca   7. Juchitan de Zaragoza   9,68   45,73   41,50 (won by Lopez)
4. Nuevo Leon   5. Monterrey   30,99   18,50   42,06
3. Chiapas   1. Palenque   7,72   43,12   43,71
2. Chiapas   3. Ocosingo   6,28   43,22   44,77
1. Chiapas   2. Bochil   10,03   36,13   48,94

[ag]

Madrazo's 10 worst (all in Mexico City, all won by Lopez):

1. Distrito Federal   1. Gustavo Madero   17,04   70,35   6,92
2. Distrito Federal   14. Tlalpan   18,11   69,39   6,96
3. Distrito Federal   23. Coyoacan   26,10   61,18   7,22
4. Distrito Federal   17. Alvaro Obregon   29,39   56,73   7,26
5. Distrito Federal   16. Alvaro Obregon   22,78   63,58   7,40
6. Distrito Federal   26. Magdalena Contreras   33,72   53,52   7,55
7. Distrito Federal   22. Iztapalapa   13,00   73,16   7,64
8. Distrito Federal   4. Iztapalapa   22,26   63,97   7,68
9. Distrito Federal   25. Iztapalapa   18,61   67,68   7,76
10. Distrito Federal   19. Iztapalapa   16,54   69,37   7,99

[ag]

Calderon won in just over half of the districts: 151 out of 300. In 84 of these he was followed by Madrazo, in 67 by Lopez.

Lopez won in 140 districts. In 94 of these he was followed by Calderon, in 46 by Madrazo.

And, a delightful tidbit for Madrazo-haters. Madrazo only managed to come 1st in 9 districts. In 8 of these, the runner-up was Lopez, in one (a strange Monterrey district, very different from the rest in that city and, in fact, the only big city district he won) it was Calderon:

Nuevo Leon   5. Monterrey   30,99   18,50   42,06   
Puebla   4. Zacapoaxtla   27,88   28,25   32,00   
Nayarit   3. Compostela   25,17   34,70   35,28   
Puebla   16. Ajalpan   25,78   32,29   35,87
Chiapas   5. San Cristobal de las Casas   12,32   39,79   40,47
Oaxaca   2. Teotitlan de Flores Magon   13,14   39,80   41,50
Chiapas   1. Palenque   7,72   43,12   43,71
Chiapas   3. Ocosingo   6,28   43,22   44,77
Chiapas   2. Bochil   10,03   36,13   48,94

[ag]

In 96 districts out of 300 one of the candidates got over 50% of the votes cast. In 51 district this was achieved by Lopez, in 45 districts by Calderon. Madrazo didn't do it in any district.

Lopez's advantage is attributable to his dominance in Mexico City, where he got over 50% in 22 distrcits out of 27. In addition, he got over 50% in 13 (out of 40) districts in Mexico State, 6 (out of 9) districts in Guerrero, all 6 districts in Tabasco, 2 (out of 11) districts in Oaxaca, 1 (out of 12) in Michoacan and 1 (out of 21) in Veracruz.

Calderon's dominance is more geographically spread. The largest group of his majority districts are in Guanajuato: 11 (out of 14). In addition, there are 8 (out of 19) in Jalisco, 6 (out of 12) in Nuevo Leon, 3 (out of 9) in Chihuahua, 3 (out of 7) in San Luis Potosi, 3 (out of 7) in Sonora, 2 (out of 40) in Mexico State, 2 (out of 4) in Queretaro, and 1 each in Aguascalientes (out of 3), Baja California (out of 8 ), Coahuila (out of 7), Durango (out of 4), Michoacan (out of 12), Veracruz (out of 21) and Yucatan (out of 5).

In Mexico State, Michoacan and Veracruz there are districts won with outright majority both by Calderon and Lopez.

[ag]

This seems to be the Congressional composition after the seats within alliances are redistributed based on pre-election agreements. In brackets change from the previous election in 2003 (House) or 2000 (Senate). The results are still somewhat subject to challenges, etc. (in a few cases, the gap between candidates in direct districts was just a few hundred votes; in at least one case, I think, it is under a hundred votes).

To sum up, everybody feasts on PRI's (near) corpse. Still, PRI remains the second-largest party in the Senate, which will give them some standing in the chamber. In the House they are screwed - a distant third.

House (out of 500):

PAN/ National Action Party 206 (+55)
PRD/ Party of Democratic Revolution 127 (+30)
PRI/ Institutional Revolutionary Party 103 (-121)
PVEM/ Green Ecological Party of Mexico 18 (+1) (SOBs drove a great bargain w/ PRI - despite the alliances fiasco, they actually gained a seat each in both chambers!)
Convergencia/ Democratic Convergence Party 17 (+12)
PT/ Labor Party 16 (+10)
PANAL/ New Alliance Party 9 (+9)
Alternativa/ Social Democratic and Peasant Alternative Party 4 (+4).

Senate (out of 128):

PAN 52 (+6)
PRI 33 (-27)
PRD 29 (+14)
PVEM 6 (+1)
Convergencia 5 (+4)
PT 2 (+1)
PANAL 1 (+1).

[ag]

An interesting feature of this election was that, other than the Mexico City and its surroundings,  the large urban areas went for the right, not for the left.

Looking at the 20 largest metro areas of Mexico (all those with over 700,000 residents according to the partial census of 2005), only Mexico City (#1) and Acapulco (#16) went unambiguously for Lopez Obrador. Cuernavaca (#15) was split: Calderon narrowly won the city proper, but Lopez was narrowly ahead in the poorer suburbs (Jiutepec).

The other 17 metro areas went clearly for Calderon, mostly by large margins. While it is true that 14 of these were in generally pro-Calderon states (though, in case of Puebla, the state broke out for Calderon largely because of his strength in the City of Puebla itself), Calderon was also far ahead in Toluca (Mexico State, the country's fifth largest metro area), Morelia (Michoacan) and Veracruz City (Veracruz) - all in states actually won by Lopez. In fact, in most of the urban districts in these last three metro areas, Calderon was ahead by nearly 2:1, sometimes with over 50% of the vote, even though the states themselves were closely contested and actually won by Lopez.

Of course, Lopez Obrador's overwhelming dominance in Mexico City (and, though less overwhelming, but still sizeable lead in most of its suburbs) means that the country's urban vote was, probably, split nearly equally. The sharp political difference between Mexico City and the rest of the urban areas (some of these large), requires an explanation.

[minionofmidas]

An interesting feature of this election was that, other than the Mexico City and its surroundings,  the large urban areas went for the right, not for the left.

...while 6 years ago, all the large urban areas went for the right, not for the center. If you can seriously call the PRI center to PAN's right, that is.

[ag]

An interesting feature of this election was that, other than the Mexico City and its surroundings,  the large urban areas went for the right, not for the left.

...while 6 years ago, all the large urban areas went for the right, not for the center. If you can seriously call the PRI center to PAN's right, that is.

6 years ago all the large metro areas were anti-PRI (same as now). Though, I'd have to check if Fox or Cardenas won in Morelia (Cardenas did win in Michoacan then). This time Morelia went for Calderon (the local boy), even though the state didn't - mainly due to a lopsided Lopez Obrador advantage in the long-term PRD stronghold, which is the port city of Lazaro Cardenas.  I am also not really sure that no top-20 city in the North stayed true in PRI back then - none of them did this time.

[minionofmidas]

Well, maybe not all... but I do remember looking over the election results by constituency way back then, and the urban PAN - rural PRI divide was very very obvious.

[ag]

Well, maybe not all... but I do remember looking over the election results by constituency way back then, and the urban PAN - rural PRI divide was very very obvious.

I've checked some of the 2000 results. I am too lazy to check them all, but it is quite telling, anyway. Surprisingly, there seems to be even less change than I thought there would. Morelia did in fact go for Fox in 2000, though a bit more narrowly than this time it goes for Calderon. More interestingly, it seems like the only major metro area to go for Cardenas was Acapulco (the only metro area other than Mexico City that went for Lopez this time), while Fox was only third there - seems like even the vote shares barely budged. Of course, Cardenas was barely present in 2000 in the North and in many urban areas outside it, so Fox (and Labastida) in general got even higher vote shares in many urban areas than Calderon (and Madrazo) did, but overall the urban results are remarkably similar.

The one, major, gaping exception is Mexico City. I guess, I know the real reason. Though in 2000 Cardenas, like Lopez this time, was a popular outgoing mayor of Mexico City, he was, in fact, a very naive mayor. He actually tried fighting the political machine left orphaned by PRI, tried to dismantle the city-controlled rackets,  "municipal job-for-political contribution" and "housing aid-for demonstration attendance" schemes, etc. Unlike him, Lopez exploited all these to the hilt. Over the last five and a half years, the PRD machine has been built here to rival the strongest PRI machines of old. Much of the poorer population in the eastern and northern districts is now entirely captured electorate, dependent on the party and the city government it controls for a non-negligible chunk of its income. It will be interesting, if Ebrard manages to control the party racket empire, or lets it decay.

[KillerPollo]

 Good one, ag, But in general, THis election is extremely important because it could an and WILL decide the fate of the Americas altogether. This decided whether Mexico drifts north or south. If Peje (Lopez Obrador) had won, You'd see a Mexico more independent from the United States and in coalition with SOuth American countries, like Brasil, or Venezuela, since Peje wants to join forces with Brazil, and consider Chavez as more of a Moderate. This would also be a disaster for the existing NAFTA and for the US itself, since Peje, like Chavez want to choke the US of its oil from that region. Keep in mind Mexique is the Mo. 1 trading partner of the United States. This would leave a gaping hole in the US economy.
But Calderon has won, and now it looks like Mexico will drift north and progress rather than reverting into a socialist hell like it was once beck in the 60s when the PRI had control of everything and everyone's lives.

[ag]

Good one, ag, But in general, THis election is extremely important because it could an and WILL decide the fate of the Americas altogether. This decided whether Mexico drifts north or south. If Peje (Lopez Obrador) had won, You'd see a Mexico more independent from the United States and in coalition with SOuth American countries, like Brasil, or Venezuela, since Peje wants to join forces with Brazil, and consider Chavez as more of a Moderate. This would also be a disaster for the existing NAFTA and for the US itself, since Peje, like Chavez want to choke the US of its oil from that region. Keep in mind Mexique is the Mo. 1 trading partner of the United States. This would leave a gaping hole in the US economy.

Not being at all an admirer of Lopez, still, I'd have to acknowledge that the above post is a not very coherent jumble. Neither Brasil's Lula, nor Lopez are at all admirers of Chavez, nor is Chavez "moderate" in their frame of reference.  Lopez's closest analog - and self-professed ally - among today's Latin American leaders is Peru's president-elect Alan Garcia, who won his own election by attacking Chavez as devil reincarnate. 

Now, Calderon and his party did claim during the campaign that Lopez would be like Chavez, but that was, should we say, an oversimplification (it was a good campaign tactic, though). At every point in the campaign Lopez tried to distance himself from Chavez. At no point did he say anything whatsoever that would imply an intention to "choke the US" of anything (in fact, as far as that is concerned, not even Chavez did).  As best as I can figure it out, Lopez never had anything like a foreign policy stated (or, for that matter, probably even personally formulated) - as far as he is concerned, "foreign policy" is what he would have to do with northern Mexican states and a "foreign trip" is when he goes to Guadalajara . Most likely, he would be an isolationist president, not a Chavezian-style interventionist.  The world for him begins and ends in Mexico - Venezuela, as far as he is concerned, could have been in China.

Lopez is dangerous for a different reason. First and foremost the problem is that he simply does not seem to be very mentally healthy.  I was suspicious of that before, I have become convinced of it since the election.  I am not a psychiatrist, of course, nor do I know him personally, but the public signs of derangement are far too visible to be ignored - and this is why the situation here is now somewhat dangerous.  He is also dangerous because of his fundamental disrespect of institutions, of the legal checks and balances, of courts, etc., or, for that matter, even of laws of nature .  Do I think he would be a disastrous president? You bet (though, in fact, I only got fully convinced of it because of his post-electoral behavior).

But is he a hard-core leftist? Not really. Or, at least, he never really said or did anything that would imply he is. Of course, he could become one once in office, but we don't have any way to tell, really.  On the contrary, I happen to have a good intelligence on whom he was planning to appoint as the Treasury Secretary.  The name wouldn't tell anything to anyone here, but, if true, it would have been a very clear sign of a very "pro Big Mexican Business" administration.

[ag]

Even though the election itself is over (though we still don't know the winner), I feel that people here are still confused about the major candidates.

Calderon is not a hard-core rightist. Most likely, he would be a Democrat in the US, a DLC type, I would say.  Yes, he is somewhat socially conservative on some issues (eg, things like abortion), but, then, nearly all Mexican politicians are - this is, fundamentally, a very Catholic country.  Otherwise, I am not sure you'd find it easy to distinguish him ideologically from, say, Bill Clinton.

Lopez is not an ultra-leftist, though it is harder to find an exact analogue in the US. Yes, he is somewhat sociallist on some issues (eg on public asset ownership in the energy sector), but, then, nearly all Mexican politicians are - this is, fundamentally, a sociallist country.  Mostly, though, we don't really know anything about his views on almost anything - besides repeatedly stating that he is "for the good of all, especially the poor" and that he has "the new project for Mexico" he never said or did anything that would amount to a statement of a political credo.

[minionofmidas]

HELP!

I'm trying to figure out the election results for an individual pueblo. How do I go about for that?

[ag]

HELP!

I'm trying to figure out the election results for an individual pueblo. How do I go about for that?

Uh. So far, not so good. I don't believe it has been posted by town, so we'd have to work.

Eventually, judging for what they've done in the past, IFE will post the results by municipality. A municipality (municipio) in Mexico, though, is a very tricky thing that varies by state. In Oaxaca, a municipality is a village or a town + a few outlying hamlets, so there are hundreds of these. If you want an Oaxaca town results, taking the municipal results is pretty much it. In Baja California, on the other hand, a municipality covers a huge territory with many towns: there are just 5, and the territorially largest, Ensenada, is bigger than each of the 4 smallest states.

Anyway, so far the data by municipio haven't been posted. The smallest aggregation we have, so far, is by the congressional district, which, in case of a rural area, will cover a lot of towns. Of course, we have also the precinct data, but figuring out which precinct is where means some work, since these are only labeled by number (a precinct has no more than 750 registered voters, usually less, so even for a small town you are talking multiple precincts).   If you give me the name of the town you are interested in, I will see what I can do (if it comes to worst, I believe one can simply look up precinct addresses).

UPDATE. Yes, I think I could get you the results for a town, but it will take me an hour or two to compile (longer for a larger place).  I'd need the town name (hopefully, you know the full official name) and, ideally, the municipio and the congressional district it is in (I could find those, but it would take time). To make sure, I just checked out a small Oaxaca town where I stopped for lunch some years ago (it is a village of one precinct, so this was easy):

State: Oaxaca
District 3: HEROICA CIUDAD DE HUAJUAPAN DE LEON
Municipio: Concepcion Buenavista
Village: Concepcion Buenavista
Precinct 125
Lopez Obrador 68
Calderon 33
Madrazo 30
Campa 1
Mercado 2
write-in 0
Invalid 6
Total 140

This being Oaxaca, there is only one other precinct in the municipio, in the village of SAN MIGUEL AZTATLA.
Precinct 126
Lopez Obrador 61
Madrazo 38
Calderon 32
Campa 3
Mercado 1
write-in 0
invalid 5
Total 140

[minionofmidas]

Nacimiento de los Negros (or perhaps El Nacimiento etc), state of Coahuila. Municipio is probably Musquiz.

[ag]

Nacimiento de los Negros (or perhaps El Nacimiento etc), state of Coahuila. Municipio is probably Musquiz.

You are interested in afro-seminole voting patterns? That's a tough one, but let me try.

[ag]

Nacimiento de los Negros (or perhaps El Nacimiento etc), state of Coahuila. Municipio is probably Musquiz.

You are interested in afro-seminole voting patterns? That's a tough one, but let me try.

It's even tougher than I thought. Yes, it is municipio Muzquiz in the Coahuila 2 district (San Pedro).  The problem is, that the recorded addresses of the precincts in the rural part of the municipio tend to be of the sort "known address on the Benito Juarez Extension, 3 blocks from the Church."  Only some of the bigger towns in the municipio are consistently recorded in the address, and Nacimiento is not among them. The postal code doesn't help, since Nacimiento doesn't have its own post office, so instead of the local post code (26345 for Nacimiento) they just put the Muzquiz post code 26340) for nearly all the addresses - the local postman will find it, anyways.

I did get a suspicious precinct, though, which might (only might) be it. The reasons for my hunch are:

1. it is in "Ejido Morelos" (on the map, there is a "Morelos" right next to - under 1 km from - the Nacimiento; though, of course, there are zillions of things with this name in Mexico)
2. it has 2 booths at the same spot (meaning there are lot of registered voters), but only a few dosen people voted in each.  In fact, if I am not mistaken, it is by far the lowest turnout anywhere in the municipality.  Would make sense in a very rural area with dispersed and/or migrant population.
3. It is in a "federal" primary school, which might (but only might) indicate a native town with local language used in instruction, and I don't think there are many non-kikapu/seminole natives in the immediate area (Nacimiento de Kikapu is right next to Nacimiento de los Negros, anyway, and would likely share the precinct),  though I might be mistaken .

If that is the case, here it is:

State: Coahuila
District 2: San Pedro (by the way, it is the only district in that part of the country won by Lopez)
Municipio Muzquiz (precincts with numbers 450-499; just eyeballing, it seems it was won either by Calderon or Madrazo, Lopez seems to be behind here)

Precinct 473
DOMICLIO CONOCIDO EJIDO MORELOS, CÓDIGO POSTAL 26340
ESCUELA PRIMARIA FEDERAL JOSÉ MARÍA MORELOS Y PAVÓN

Basic booth

Madrazo 24
Calderon 18
Lopez Obrador 13
Campa 0
Mercado 0
write-ins 0
invalid 0
Total 55

Contiguous Booth 1

Madrazo 30
Calderon 17
Lopez Obrador 13
Campa 0
Mercado 1
write-ins 0
invalid 0
Total 61

Again, I am not sure it is it, but this seems to be the most likely candidate.

[minionofmidas]

Nacimiento de los Negros (or perhaps El Nacimiento etc), state of Coahuila. Municipio is probably Musquiz.

You are interested in afro-seminole voting patterns? That's a tough one, but let me try.

I'm interested in the history of the Black Seminoles. The vote result question came sort of naturally...

That might be it, yeah. The Kickapoo probably don't vote at all - aren't exactly sedentary anyways... although if that's it, it would seem the Mascogos didn't exactly turn out in high numbers either. Shame there's no figure for registered voters...

[ag]

Nacimiento de los Negros (or perhaps El Nacimiento etc), state of Coahuila. Municipio is probably Musquiz.

Shame there's no figure for registered voters...
[/quote]

I could try to  find that - that infor should be somewhere on the IFE site. In any case, you have one indication: I believe, they only put a second booth at the precinct if there are at least 750 voters registered. In Mexico City a good turnout is about 400 voters in a booth.

[minionofmidas]

Thanks!

[ag]

The 473 precinct in Coahuila had 841 registered voters, of which 807 (415 men and 395 women) had a valid voter ID and could vote (the rest would be people who reported their ID lost or stolen, or those who turned 18 after the end of January or February, at which point no new ID requests were processed, or else never picked up their ID after registering). So, the 116 counted ballots represent a turnout of about 14.4% of possible.

In addition, there are two strange nearby precincts, 471 and 472. They do not show up on the returns list, which has to mean either that they were eliminated at the last moment with voters being instructed to vote elsewhere, or else that they are among the 8 precincts nationwide that failed to open on the election day. Now, these are VERY small precincts: 471 has 21 voters registered and 472 has 16 (all of them have IDs). Looking at the map these could be the isolated ranchos in the northern part of Muzquiz, north of Nacimiento. It is likely, these were indeed abolished some time before the election and only have assigned to them the voters who have not recently requested an ID change (presumably, these would be instructed to vote elsewhere).