Mexico -- who would you vote for

[© tweed]

Vote

[Jake]

Felipe Calderon and PAN

[Colin]

Felipe Calderon/Partido Action National

[ag]

Since I will actually vote, I won't tell

[Hatman 🍁]

I voted PRD, but looking at the race more in depth, I think I'd vote for Patrica Mercado

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador and PRD for the legislature. What voting system does Mexico use for the legislature?

[YoMartin]

Them: http://www.alternativadf.org.mx/j/. They´re really excited a recent poll gave them... 3.7%

Ag, you don´t need to tell us who you´re voting for, we already know...

[ag]

Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador and PRD for the legislature. What voting system does Mexico use for the legislature?

Roughly German for the House. 300 seats go by FPTP, the remaining 200 seats are distributed between party slates that get at least 2% nationwide to give a roughly proportional allocation overall. I believe, no party is allowed to have more than 300 seats, but that constraint is not going to be binding.

Crazy for Senate. Each state and the Federal District have 3 seats: 2 for the leading party, 1 for the party coming second in the state. This gives us 96 Senators. In addition, between 20 and 30 senators are elected on PR w/ regional slates - I should doublecheck how exactly.

I will give exact details after checking the law.

[ag]

Them: http://www.alternativadf.org.mx/j/. They´re really excited a recent poll gave them... 3.7%

Ag, you don´t need to tell us who you´re voting for, we already know...

Campa ?

[ag]

Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador and PRD for the legislature. What voting system does Mexico use for the legislature?

Actually, having checked the constitution (more details would be in the appropriate law, but I have to search for it), here is the electoral system.

House (elected for 3 years, no re-election of members allowed).

1. 300 members elected directly on FPTP in single-member districts.

2. In addition, 200 members are apportioned as follows. The country is divided into 5 multi-member constituencies and parties that have candidates in at least 200 single-member districts may present slates in each constituency. Voters have separate ballots for the multi-member slates. If a party obtains 2% of these votes nationwide it can participate in the distribution of the PR seats

3. The PR seats are distributed in each constituency proportionally to the national vote shares (I'd have to double-check this in the law itself - sounds fishy, and somewhat unclear). In general, the allocation of PR seats is indepdendent of the single-member seats except as follows:

a) no party may have more than 300 seats overall
b) no party can have a total share of seats that exceeds by more than 8% its vote share on the PR vote, unless the party exceeds this constraint solely by means of single-member seats, in which case the party obtains no PR seats.

4. The seats that are unallocated because of the previous restrictions are distributed proportionally between the remaining parties.


Senate (elected for 6 years, no re-election of senators allowed)

1. 96 senators are elected from states. In each state and in the Federal District each party registers a list of two candidates. Voters vote for a party. The party that comes first statewide gets both candidates elected, the party that comes second has the first candidate on its list elected.

2. 32 senators are elected from national party slates in a single-district national PR.

[MaC]

wow, don't know much but based on what I've heard about parties likely the PAN.  I'd say PRI, but they've become too big of a party with 70 years prior to Fox.  Other than basic ideologies I don't have much an idea what issues are important or where the parties stand so my vote is kinda out of ignorance.

[minionofmidas]

No reelection of House members allowed? What?

[ag]

No reelection of House members allowed? What?

Neither there is reelection of village council members, village mayors, governors or dog-catchers (well, dog catchers aren't elected, but would have been banned from reelection if they were). Nor can elected or appointed officials run for another office without resigning their current office before the start of campaign (which is very long in Mexico). So, for most of the members the term is not even 3 years (6 in the Senate) but more like 2.5. ¡Sufragio efectivo! ¡No reelección! Talk about the extreme case of term limits.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

That seems odd. The single term limit for the President makes sense, the PRI wanted to ensure power kept moving and no President could establish himself as a dictator instead of the party rule, but term limiting the legislature just seems it'd make things more difficult: better to fill it full of PRI party hacks who stay there for life. What's the reason?

Also, is it possible for people to run for non-consecutive terms?

[ag]

That seems odd. The single term limit for the President makes sense, the PRI wanted to ensure power kept moving and no President could establish himself as a dictator instead of the party rule, but term limiting the legislature just seems it'd make things more difficult: better to fill it full of PRI party hacks who stay there for life. What's the reason?

Also, is it possible for people to run for non-consecutive terms?

This actually predates the PRI. The Mexican revolution was run on the "No reelection" slogan, and this has been the Holy Grail ever since.  PRI adopted the system at its founding.

Non-consecutive election, I believe, is possible for legislative office (though might be frowned upon), but is impossible, in practice if not in law for the executive office. A few years ago one governor (in Yucatan, I believe) was elected some years after he had briefly been an interim appointed governor - this is still viewed as something incredibly high-handed on his part.

Early on Alvaro Obregon was elected president in 1928 having been president in 1921-24. He was killed the next day after the election. Some time later, the elder brother of President Avilo Camacho tried to have himself nominated to replace his younger sibling - he died after a suspicious dinner. President Aleman, apparently, mentioned a possibility of reelection to his friends and was quickly explained that he wouldn't be able to survive a serious attempt on his part.

Even election of a close relative is a taboo. Last year, the wife of the then PRD governor of Tlaxcala - and prominent politician and a Senator in her own right - wanted to succede her husband. She ran in the party's primary and won it. The party went to court trying to declare it illegal but failed. It then chose not to campaign for its ostensible candidate, preferring the governorship to fall to PAN (as it did).

Just a few days ago the Congress rejected an attempt to ammend the Constitution to let states allow reelection of mayors.  It seems, even reelecting dog-catchers is a non-starter.

[Democratic Hawk]

Whichever's slightly left-of-centre centrist

Dave

[ag]

Whichever's slightly left-of-centre centrist

Dave

You mean the guy who is known to eat little kids for breakfast?

The slightly left-of-center centrist within the Mexican spectrum has a public reputation of a villain - it is Roberto Madrazo of the PRI.

[??????????]

Whoever the most conservative party is. I guess since Jake voted "PAN" that would be it.

[ag]

Whoever the most conservative party is. I guess since Jake voted "PAN" that would be it.

Sure. Though, except on the role of religion (strong Catholic), you'd find they are quite leftist for your taste.

[??????????]

Whoever the most conservative party is. I guess since Jake voted "PAN" that would be it.

Sure. Though, except on the role of religion (strong Catholic), you'd find they are quite leftist for your taste.

As long as they aren't that New England liberal Catholic nonsense.

[ag]

Whoever the most conservative party is. I guess since Jake voted "PAN" that would be it.

Sure. Though, except on the role of religion (strong Catholic), you'd find they are quite leftist for your taste.

As long as they aren't that New England liberal Catholic nonsense.

Depending on what. They are against abortions, etc. (as are many of Mexico's sociallists as well), but a key proposal by Calderon is gradual introduction of universal medical insurance (government-provided) - so, here they might be to the left of those NE Dems. So, figure it out for yourself.

[YoMartin]

Whoever the most conservative party is. I guess since Jake voted "PAN" that would be it.

Sure. Though, except on the role of religion (strong Catholic), you'd find they are quite leftist for your taste.

As long as they aren't that New England liberal Catholic nonsense.

Depending on what. They are against abortions, etc. (as are many of Mexico's sociallists as well), but a key proposal by Calderon is gradual introduction of universal medical insurance (government-provided) - so, here they might be to the left of those NE Dems. So, figure it out for yourself.

I thought Mexico had universal health insurance. You can´t call PRI´s rule "socialist" if they didn´t pass that in 70 years...

Slightly left of center could be Mercado, too. Of course, it all depends on what you understand by "left" and "right".

[ag]

Mexico has elements of universal insurance. Here is what there is:

1. ISSSTE. Insurance for those working for the government  to be used in a nationwide network of dedicated government hospitals. Also covers family members. Introduced under PRI. In some states, there are local analogs of ISSSTE for state employees.

2. Insurance for the oil monopoly employees (Pemex), the army and a few other agencies - to be used in the hospitals of each respective organization. Also covers family members Introduced under PRI.

3. Instituto Mexicano  de Seguro Social (IMSS). Insurance for those working in a formal sector (ie, registered for the tax purposes) - to be used in another nationwide network of government hospitals. Also covers family members (fairly broadly understood). Can be purchased by others (including US retirees resident in Mexico) for a fee (the fee is small - for Americans - but feels large for most of those Mexicans outside the formal sector). Introduced by PRI in 1982.

Alltogether these cover some 40%-50% of the population.

In addition, there are

4. Oportunidades. The government anti-poverty program includes actually paying women and children for regularly visiting local community clinics for check-ups and care. Originally introduced in rural areas late in PRI rule (by the "neo-liberal" Zedillo administration, as Progresa). Vastly expanded under Fox to all towns w/ population under 1 mln. Covers only the poorest.

5. Seguro Popular. A new program introduced by Fox in the last couple of years. For a modest fee (smaller then the fee those ineligible would have to pay to join IMSS), people can get an insurance policy providing access to most government hospitals.  The program is being rapidly expanded - in the last 2 years over 3 mln. families have signed up, more are planned by the end of the administration.

Furthermore, you have the following:

6. Private insurance - multiple insurance companies provide insurance to access major procedures in private hospitals (minor stuff is easier paid for out of pocket). This makes sense for the middle class and up only, of course.

7. There are, of course, as in most countries, General Hospitals, which are supposed to attend anyone before asking about the pay, but their quality, should we say, varies, and the service is bare bones.

8. Child vaccination campaigns cover everyone.

What Calderon is proposing is a further expansion of Seguro Popular. In addition, he is proposing to start by giving lifetime medical coverage to all children born in his administration - through a mechanism not yet specified, possibly administered as part of the Seguro Popular.

PS Fox has vetoed the drugs bill. It appears, the administration was one of its sponsors, and he had said he'd sign it, but 7 hours later his office made a correction. The bill is "returned to Congress w/ observations".  Figure it out.

[YoMartin]

PS Fox has vetoed the drugs bill. It appears, the administration was one of its sponsors, and he had said he'd sign it, but 7 hours later his office made a correction. The bill is "returned to Congress w/ observations".  Figure it out.

It was too good to be true, too liberal (in the original meaning of the word) to pass so easily in the middle of a presidential campaign. And I had found a way not to commit a crime before doing drugs: to have found them (you didn´t buy it, you didn´t make, anyone gave it to you. Finding something and taking it can´t be a crime).

[ag]

PS Fox has vetoed the drugs bill. It appears, the administration was one of its sponsors, and he had said he'd sign it, but 7 hours later his office made a correction. The bill is "returned to Congress w/ observations".  Figure it out.

It was too good to be true, too liberal (in the original meaning of the word) to pass so easily in the middle of a presidential campaign. And I had found a way not to commit a crime before doing drugs: to have found them (you didn´t buy it, you didn´t make, anyone gave it to you. Finding something and taking it can´t be a crime).

Presidential campaign had nothing to do with it: this was entirely a non-issue. Much more controversial legislation was being passed at the end of the session several times a day - if anything, campaign serves to cover things up.

As for this bill, no candidate ever mentioned it, all parties were, mostly, in favor, the administration itself had proposed it. The only debate there were was, mostly, among the experts in the field. The objective was and remains not to have to arrest addicts, but concentrate on dealers - the same bill actually toughened the penalties for those. A version of the bill is still likely to get through, "with corrections". Despite denials, it was, mainly, the pressure from the North - it had 10 times as much to do with the US immigration debate as it had to do with all of the domestic politics taken together.