Talk:Andrés Manuel López Obrador

Talk:Andrés Manuel López Obrador/archive1

Hi Roman, The information that is going around on the Internet states that López Obrador spent fourteen years at the University, before he was able to graduate. When he finally did graduate, he did not complete the necessary work (thesis) to receive an official degree.

Background

I just don't understand. At one point I have read in the background that Obrador did not graduate and he is drop-out? Was this inaccurate info? Now is says it graduated with a degree. As a person from Azerbaijan I am confused. Which info is right? I assume this was vandalism by the people from the right or his opponent's supporters? More info appreciated. --Roman123 18:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

AMLO's college grades have been distributed around the Internet as a proof of him being a drop-out; however, it isn't clear who started to distribute this information or even if it's true. It doesn't look like vandalism, though; it's just something that has to be clarified by reliable sources. --Benighted 192.88.212.44 18:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Left vs. Center-Left

I think there is a general agreement that AMLO is center-left, per previous discussion. However, the PRD is not a center-left party, it is a grouping of many factions from different parts of the left-spectrum. I think that it would be best to avoid placing an adjective on the PRD in this page, because there is already a page for the PRD where editors can do just that. I think the most appropriate thing to do is simply call AMLO center-left, and avoid categorizing the PRD. If a categorization of the PRD is necessary, I think the most accurate one is "leftist" or "left-wing", considering the plurality of the party. Hari Seldon 15:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it is a very bad idea trying to apply a left-centre-right label to a politician in the opening line of an article. These labels are always subjective and open to challenge. The PRD is historically a left-wing party and should be described as such. If AMLO is on the moderate wing of the party that should be said somewhere later in the text. Adam 16:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I find that agreeable, but I think we should wait to see what other opinions the other editors have. Hari Seldon 20:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I think one reason AMLO is not defined as left-wing politician, it´s his huge support among people who doesn´t identify with any party. This people come from very different backgrounds, and I really believe (that's my opinion) their support is for the candidate, not for the party. Therefore, his actions must take into account their ideals. User: gchavez77 27 June 2006

The political opinions of those who vote for him are not really relevant to the question of how he should be described. If he has cross-party appeal, that can be noted (if appropriately sourced). Adam 06:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say that he has a cross-party appeal. Many people in Mexico consider themselves as "independent", just as people in the u.s. who are not republican or democrat.User: gchavez77 27 June 2006

It doesn't matter who are the supporters of the candidate. His place in the political spectrum are defined by his actions and by his political platform. If you please read the article for left-wing politics, and if you see the international sources who cite Lopez Obrador as "center-left", then it is clear that no discussion is needed. AMLO is center-left, the PRD is left, as is shown in the sources. The political ideology of those who support the candidate are irrelevant. For example, Fox was elected partly because of the support of the "independent left", who voted for him. Does that make Fox a left-wing politician? I think that whomever supported Fox is irrelevant to define that his Presidency and his Party are clearly right or center-right (or in the odd cases, such as Diego Fernandez, far-right). Same happens with AMLO and PRD. Hari Seldon 14:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I beg to disagree with Mr. Seldon, a politician creates an agenda in part based on what his/her constituency expects from such a person, at least that's how a democracy works. If your constituency is far-right you can not be labelled as "center", that is very obvious. Besides that Seldon is right, it is easier to label AMLO as center-left. Pabloblns, 1 july 2006.

I agree that a democracy works with candidates following the demands of its constituents. However, Mexico is not a perfect democracy, and these politicians (AMLO, Calderon, Madrazo) were all doing politics before democratic elections where allowed. They bring their platform based on their party's interests, and not in what their constituency demands. Besides, the political platform is not an important factor influencing the elector's decisions as much as a perception of corruption. Hari Seldon 17:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Mexico not a perfect democracy? Can you show me a perfect democracy? Certainly not the US, where vote fraud is rife. Obrador is right to declare vote fraud, as the following posts prove: http://www.narconews.com/Issue42/article1967.html

'And then there was a call saying that the state police barracks at Santa Maria Coyotepec held thousands of ballots which the troops were busily marking for distribution to the polls at the close of the day – a believable scenario given that so many polling places had “inadvertently” run out of ballots. The caller said his uncle, a police officer, just couldn’t bring himself to do it and blew the whistle. The uncle said the police had been working for three days to mark the ballots. The caller’s voice wavered with emotion as he described his uncle’s information. http://www.narconews.com/Issue42/article1958.html Brian

I have changed far-left politician to left-leaning politician. 10:36 July 06, 2006 (EST) Andres Aullet

Mr. Obrador is a far-Left politician. National Review calls him a "radical Leftist," while FNC refers to him as a "leftist," Mexico's Leftist Candidate Calls for Mass Protest. I think it is appropriate at the least to label him a leftist. - MSTCrow 20:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

What about calling him a leftist with a strong populist tendency? LuisDS

Edit by 201.143.182.131

I'm tempted to just delete his post, but let's see what he has to show for pictures of the rally. Schicchi 02:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Removal of Dirty War (guerra sucia) commentary

I don't agree with the removal of the mention of the dirty war. Dirty war not only refers to TV ads and spots against AMLO, but also against Calderón and other candidates. There are a lot of mentions in the press, where it clearly demonstrates that the fall of AMLO in the polls was a direct repercusion of the TV ads against him. Later in the campaign, the IFE (the electoral council) ruled that most of this TV ads were difamatory, and they had to be removed. This also happened with TV ads against Calderón. user gchavez77

The most respected pollster in Mexico, Maria de las Heras, disagrees. Maria de las Heras predicted the electoral victories of Vicente Fox and Rodriguez Zapatero when every other poll disagreed. She has placed AMLO at the top by 3 porcentual points THROUGHOUT the election and she has said that the so-called "dirty war" (which is only a campaign strategy) had no effect on Lopez Obrador, and that his supposed fall had more to do with his party's nomination of candidates to deputies and senators and other local offices. Therefore, the Dirty War comment is irrelevant to the page.

Furthermore, this page discusses AMLO, his policies, and his actions, and not campaign wars, which are natural phenomena in campaigns everywhere. Perhaps the dirty war should be mentioned in the 2006 Mexico General Election page.

Besides, the original comment made no mention of the PRD ads against Calderón, and the fact that the "dirty war" was a two-sided issue.

Finally, I wouldn't call it a "dirty-war", because it isn't. I'll call it a denigratory campaign strategy: candidates run ads to define their opponents in a poor way, instead of running ads to define themselves and their proposals positively. In fact, AMLO ran very few ads about his proposals, because he used alternative communication to expose them.

Hari Seldon 22:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Winner

I've seen vandalism all over the internet now, including Wikipedia. Yesterday (Thursday June 29), the wikipedia sites of Felipe Calderon, Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, and Vicente Fox where vandalized proclaiming AMLO the winner of the election to take place on Sunday July 2.

Since the election is clear to be very close, I suggest that we as wikipedians try to prevent declaring a winner before the IFE does so. The official winner will be announced on Wednesday, so I think that the following conditions of valid editing to proclaim the winner should be met before declaring a winner in wikipedia:

1. If all seeminly losing candidates accept their defeat, then we can proclaim a winner.
2. If the IFE declares a winner on July 2 at night with more than 2% of difference and more than 90% of the ballots counted, then we can proclaim a winner.
3. If none of the above is met, then we should wait until Wednesday until the IFE proclaims an official winner.

What do you think?

Hari Seldon 15:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we need to declare a winner at all, I don't think it's Wikipedia's place. We can report on IFE's conclusions and the process from now until Wednesday, with few problems. If the elections are very close and more than one candidate fails to accept defeat, we should report on that process too. Obviously, vandalism of articles declaring anyone to be the winner before the actual elections, or before the elections end, should just be removed. When exit polls are published on Sunday night, however, I see nothing wrong with keeping Wikipedia up to date (although it might be a bit tedious to update all candidates' pages, so it should probably be kept to the election article). In other words, keep removing vandalism, and don't worry too much about it. JZ 09:41, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I agree with you. Hari Seldon 17:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but smile! we all mexicans are going to win if this is a clean election.

Anonymous: I have no doubt that tomorrow's election will be among the cleanest in Mexico's history, and regardless of the winner, Mexico will be a better country after the elections! Hari Seldon 23:41, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

NOONE can declare a winner except TRIFE. IFEs rush to declare Calderon winner followed by the media pack is fraudulent, adn shows collusion between IFE and PAN. Here is mexican newsweekly Proceso: '“The decision by the IFE to leave the announcement of its PREP results in suspense, in spite of the fact it could have done so before midnight on Sunday, confirms that this agency has been an ally of the federal government in its goal of avoiding, at all costs, the arrival of Andrés Manuel López Obrador to the presidency.” http://www.narconews.com/Issue42/article1967.html Brian

Brian you are rushing too in your comments. IFE delcares who got the majority and TRIFE confirms it if there are no proofs of fraud. TRIFE cannot declare a winner by itself because it is a judicial body (it is a court=tribunal) that does not count the votes, it simply oversees the legality of the procedure. IFE calls the election on the basis of relative majority on a first-past-the-post system. Secondly, you should know by now that both Proceso and La Joranda are left-wing publications and pro-AMLO, they cannot be taken as neutral. Thirdly, not calling the election (i.e. declaring a winner) on Sunday night was AGREED by all parties if the difference on the exit polls (encuestas de salida) was close to or less than the statistical error (0.3%). Since that was the case, IFE, as agreed by all parties, decided to defer its announcement. Fourthly, not calling an election does not constitute by itself a proof of fraud; not calling an election does not even constitute a proof of an "alliance between the federal government and IFE". Moreover your citation (narconews.com) assumes AMLO won a priori. --Alonso 16:26, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it is unfair to jump into conclusions based upon personal perceptions (like the PRD calling for a conspiracy between the federal government and the IFE or the national leader of PAN, Manuel Espino demanding the IFE to name his candidate the winner of the election based on the PREP, when they knew that 3 million votes were not counted yet). This is a very controversial issue, however, I beg to differ in calling certain newspapers PRO or agains any candidate. I have had this discussion with the editor of the Reforma article. If you assume that la Jornada and Proceso are biased, then which publications can you trust? The people supporting AMLO would say that the other newspapers are pro Calderon, and we can keep arguing forever. I think that in order to make an article onjective both sources should be cited and comments pertaining to each of the sourrces should be made, letting THE READER MAKE HIS OWN CONCLUSIONS BASED ON THE FACTS PROVIDED. I have seen that people contributing in articles seldom keep in mind that they are not supposed to write opinions on their contributions, and they fail to recognize when they do so. Andres Lopez.

It is no surprise that journals and newspapers editorials have a political preference, not only in Mexico, but pretty much everywhere in the world (e.g. Washington Post is regarded as a conservative newspaper; El Periódico in Spain is also conservative whereas Avui is liberal, etc.). That is why we must distinguish between facts and editorial opinions. What the PREP reported is a fact; to say it is fraudulent (or precise) is an opinion. You cannot cite Proceso and La Joranda, which are, explicitly left-wing (and even PRO-AMLO) publications to say that there was fraud, anymore that you can cite the El Universal editorial to "proof" there wasn't. Universal and Reforma do not mix editorial comments and news articles (they clearly separate them, so you can tell which is which) and Editorial Comments are only accessible through an explicit link, they are never (or rarely) posted on the main page. Proceso is a specialized publication which do not present news but opinions (it is not a newspaper, but a magazine; it doesn't "sell" news, it sells the "analysis" of their editors, ergo opinions). --Alonso 14:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I might be mistaken but what I gather from your the previous paragraph is that (according to you) La Jornada and Proceso are not reliable sources of information. I honestly think that this is very hard to judge, and I think that you are going a little bit too far in your comments. What I can say though, is that if they are major circulation media, they would require mention in an article specially when they provide information that no one else does. Don't you think? Andres Lopez.

Citations

could someone please give some refs for this statement:

• López Obrador used the moment to advance his popularity, and even put himself in a position where he was about to set foot on jail, only to be bailed out by political opponents who claimed Lopez Obrador should follow the same judicial process as anyone else. One of the largest public marches ever seen was organized in support of López Obrador against the desafuero. Opponents questioned the validity of the march, since some attendants appear to have been brought to the march by López Obrador's support team.

Actually, the entire Desafuero section needs refs and clean-up --gloushire 23:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Election Results

I think now that the results of the election are known a complete reorganization of the article is in order. Let's hope the section for "post electoral conflict" doesn't end up being too long.

Couldnt resist commenting - whatever happened on these ellections, 60% of the population would get a president they didnt choose. Its imo an inherent error of the electional system - a second round of voting or prefferential voting sistem is absolutely necessary with more than 2 significant candidates.

Mexico's electoral system is a First Past the Post system, which means that only relative majority is needed not absolute majority. Moreover since voting is a "prerrogative" (according to the constitution) but not compulsory nor enforced (unlike most countries in South America), a second round would be useless for the same reason: if only 50% of the population chooses to vote and the candidate wins with 50% + 1 vote (absolute majority on a second round) then it can be said that 75% would get a president they didn't choose. Second rounds would only meet the purpose you suggest if there is compulsory suffrage, as it is the case in most countries in South America that do use second rounds (e.g. Chile and Argentina) --Alonso 16:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Im not sure I follow this logic re num of people actually using their right to vote - anyone who cared to choose would have chosen the president majority of them preffered, whereas now majority of people who cared to choose their president got a president they explicitly didnt vote for; theres no reason to suppose ppl who didnt vote were in any sense opposed to the ellected president, whoever got ellected, as you have, while that can reasonably be thought for people who actually voted for some of presidents competitors, and should at least be checked in another round, or better, by ranking votes - incentive for strategic voting is incredibly strong without it. As a voting sistem, all else in the legislature being equal, a first past the post will certaly show the will of people simply matematically worse than a prefferential sysem, or even its two round approximation. Two rounds without forcing everyone to vote is pretty common in europe, at least where the president has significant authority, and sometimes even when not.

I'm sorry but I understood only half of what you said. I don't know if this discussion is relevant at all to this article, but since you are writing anonimously, we cannot continue this conversation on you talk page. Assuming those who did not vote would have voted for the candidate preferred by the majority is irrational, you cannot assume anything about preferences of those who choose not to vote; in fact, as it was the case in Mexico, EZLN had asked the citizens not to vote but to support the "other alternative" (i.e. their movement); others may not have voted because they didn't like ANY of the possible candidates. Whichever is the case, at least these two groups of people will get a president they don't like, a president they didn't explicitly vote for. Now, while two rounds are common in Europe where voting is not compulsory, all but one of the European states operate with parliamentary systems or semi-presidential systems (prime minister is elected from legislature and president is chief of state or figurehead) whereas Mexico operates under a full presidential system (president is elected separated from legislature and is both chief of government and chief of state). Moreover the majority of European states do not use first-past-the-post (UK being a notable exception) but proportional representation (or a mixture of both), an electoral system which, by its very nature, produces multi-party system in which on rare ocassions a single party ever gets absolute majority, and in which coalitions (or second rounds) are necessary in order for the legislature to elect a prime minister (and sometimes the president, depending on the country). Since the president has all executive authority in Mexico and since it is elected independently from the legislature, a first-past-the-post with relative majority does the job without the need of forming parliamentary coalitions. In fact, Mexico uses both first-past-the-post and proportional representation to elect the legislature on both houses. --Alonso 14:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I unfrequently use this account so dont have the good habbit to login when commenting, youre right, this is irrelevant to the article - but I watched the crisis these ellections created in mexico with some interest, and visited this page in search of some information - my first reaction was mainly that this shouldnt have happened with a better election system. The two round ellections (while still unnecessarely suboptimal) are not used or related to the proportional voting used in parlamentary ellections, (hence the whole discussion of the system used for ellecting the parlament you explain here is completely irrelevant), but for direct ellection of the president, essentially identical to the way president is ellected in the proportional vote countries, and usually where hes rather powerfull (like semi-presidential) but also in directly ellecting the president of some parlamentary system countries, even thought hes not too relevant there (more than a figurehead though). I supossed nothing about the non-voters, but indeed thought them irrelevant to the argument, though you used them as a point, I failed to express myself if ive given you a different impression - people that didnt vote simply didnt vote, have willingly choosen to make their opinion irrelevant to the mechanism of the ellections and so cannot be part of the argument about the ellectoral system; those who did vote, due to there being more than 2 strong candidates and a system that ellects by prularity and not seeking actual majority approval in an unacceptibly huge number got a president they explicitly chose against, and no chance to express who they'd actually (rather) support. --Aryah 21:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)