The Mexican election and the 'other’ voters

by Cliopatria

I have been extremely busy this past month. One casualty of that is my understanding of the Mexican election. I’m just learning about the candidates even as the results are going to court. I knew basically that, depending on who you read, Felipe Calderón is the friend of economic growth or a stooge of the US and corporations, while Lopéz Obrador is a friend of the people or a man who appeals to hate and division.

I also know that each got just over 35% of the vote. What I’d like to know is, beyond the obvious import of winning and losing, just exactly what those percentages mean.

One of the first things that struck me when I saw the count today, was that over 29% of the vote that went elsewhere. Yet, I found no discussion of that that meant. In fact, it took me about 20 minutes of surfing to find, via the BBC, that the third place candidate got over 22% of the vote.

His name is Roberto Madrazo, and he is the PRI candidate. (Yes, I know, a Wikipedia article. It’s interpretation may be shaky, but the stats look right, and the map is clear.)

How the mighty have fallen! In the United States, no political party has ever fallen so quickly from dominance as the PRI has. Then, thankfully, no U.S. political party ever had such control over the government. Still, I find myself wondering, are those 22% of the voters now so irrelevant that they should go unconsidered in all the post-election speculation going on north of the border?

I would think that the answer is no. First of all, take a look at the map in the Wiki article on the PRI above. It’s still potent.

Second, let’s compare Madrazo’s total with a couple of recent US third place candidates. In 1968, George Wallace rocked the election scene with just over 12% of the popular vote, though the concentration of those votes in just a few states magnified his impact. In 1992 Ross Perot got over 18% of the popular vote. Many observers considered his vote a sign of broader dissatisfaction with the choices available. The Republicans played on this quite effectively in 1993 and 1994 by constantly portraying Bill Clinton as a minority president.

And neither Perot nor Wallace had a political party apparatus.

Now there may be good reasons based on the way Mexico’s government functions to focus on the first two candidates only. As I made clear above, I’m just beginning to catch up. But a pretty large group of people voted for Madrazo, and, when his votes are combined with those of the minor candidates, nearly 30% of Mexicans preferred someone else. When the winner has under 36%, that’s big. And it should not be ignored.

PS I have no doubt there has been some excellent reporting that I have missed. I would appreciate posts and links to lead me, and perhaps other readers, to it.

comments powered by Disqus

More Comments:

Hank Bower - 7/8/2006

As I understand it, PRI historically incorporated left and right in the party. Through the "dedazo," the president picked his successor, generally alternating from the left and then the right wings of the party. This kept everyone happy.

When Cuauhtemoc Cardenas and others deserted PRI to form PRD, they took a lot of the left with them. However, PRI retained many on the left simply because they continued to hold tremendous patronage power.

This may be a long way of saying that if PRI were to disintegrate, large numbers of PRIistas would join both PRD and PAN.

In my view, the first reform that must be adopted in Mexico is to allow for reelection to the same office by the members of both houses of Congress. I understand the policy reasons, and the emotion behind that policy, of allowing one term for the President; however, that policy does not apply to Congress.

Preventing reelection of members of Congress prevents developing expertise in the legislative process and was used to keep Congress weak in relation to the President.

PRI still holds sufficient members of Congress to join with PRD to block legislation sponsored by PAN. This was the problem during Vicente Fox Quesada's sexenio. After the midterm elections, one of Reforma's columnists called on PRI to join with PAN in finding creative solutions to Mexico's problems rather than blocking legislation.

In one PAN tax proposal, Elba Esther Gordillo led 71 PRIistas to vote for the plan. Roberto Madrazo had her removed from her position as the PRI leader in the Chamber of Deputies. PRI opposed other PAN initiatives.

Perhaps, some PRI members of Congress will support PAN's legislation during the new sexenio. Others undoubtedly will oppose PAN legislation. This could be the beginning of the split of PRI into the two parties.

Personally, I think it is premature to think that PRI will disappear. Other much smaller parties continue to field congressional candidates and win positions. PRI holds far more members of Congress than the Greens and Labor and continues to hold various governorships. Furthermore, the Mexican system of financing elections may provide incentives for many to continue PRI as a party.

Jonathan Dresner - 7/7/2006

In truth, it was both sarcastic and sincere: I know Nader's implosion, like Perot's, doesn't bode well for spoiler-candidates. Mexico doesn't have a parliamentary system, like Israel or Italy, which lends itself to coalitions, either. On the other hand, a "winner-take-all" system with three roughly evenly balanced parties, or even one smaller one, is going to have a very different dynamic than the 1.5 party system we currently enjoy.

Oscar Chamberlain - 7/7/2006

KC

That possibiility of a split interests me. Are the majority of PRI supporters likely to move to one party or the other? That's an important question.

A second one is how much patronage the PRI has at the state level. That could sustain its existence until it found a competitive set of ideas--or at least a charismatic candidate--for national competition.

Robert KC Johnson - 7/7/2006

I think the question with the PRI is whether they'll be dealmakers or whether they'll simply disintegrate--with more conservative PRI legislators affiliating with the government and more leftist PRI legislators joining the opposition.

Since the PRI no longer has patronage to dole out, it's going to be hard for them to keep the party together.

Ralph E. Luker - 7/7/2006

That could be either a straightforward or a sarcastic remark, but having it from you I'm guessing it is straightforward. Seriously, one could make an argument that Nader significantly influenced 2000 election, but he made more influential enemies then and has been a sort of laughingstock subsequently. Because he's such a one-man band, he completely failed to establish a congressional influence (and probably destroyed any congressional access that he'd previously had), whereas PRI has and will continue to have influence in the Mexican congress.

Jonathan Dresner - 7/7/2006

It still puts the PRI in a position of being a possible deal-maker/spoiler.... look at how influential Nader's been....

Ralph E. Luker - 7/7/2006

Oscar, I think you have to start with the U.S./Mexico comparison data not being particularly helpful. 18% for Ross Perot looks very big, indeed, in a nation with a long- and deeply- entrenched two-party system. By contrast, even 22% for PRI looks less impressive in a nation that had, until recently, a one-party system and PRI polled 4 times that percentage. Mexico may want to step back from this election and take a look at modifying its system in some way, maybe adding provision for a run-off or some other means of guaranteeing that a mere 36% of the vote is not sufficient for victory. That said, I'm afraid that I can't help you with PRI's platform this year. I assume that the 22% still draws on its old base among Mexico's labor unions and state employees.