Stealing the Mexican Election

By David Frum
AEI.org | August 8, 2006

At first, it seemed like a mariachi version of Bush v. Gore. On July 2, the Mexican presidential election ended in a teeth-chatteringly close final result: 35.89 percent of the vote for winner Felipe Calderon to 35.32 percent of the vote for loser Lopez Obrador.

As in the United States, the left-of-center loser had started with a big lead over the eventual right-of-center winner. As in the United States, the loser disputed the result and demanded a recount. As in the United States, the loser lost the recount, too. As in the United States, the loser then demanded a new kind of recount, one more favourable to himself. And as in the United States, the courts told him he could not have it.

But here's where the Mexican story begins ominously to diverge from the American.

Bush v. Gore went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. On Dec. 8, 2000, that court delivered a ruling that finished Gore's hopes. Gore privately reviled the decision. But nonetheless, within a very few minutes he stepped before the television cameras to deliver a gracious speech accepting the result. The United States lives by law, and no politician can hope to survive outside the law.

In Mexico, however, the rule of law is newer and weaker. Undaunted by his legal defeats, Lopez Obrador has launched a struggle for power in the streets of Mexico.