I recently visited Mexico (where I had previously resided for a decade and a half) and during my stay, my Mexican wife voted in the July 5 congressional election.
I accompanied her to the polling station and was impressed by the voting system, which, I must say, is better than ours.
Every registered Mexican voter has a voter ID card, complete with photograph, fingerprint, and a holographic image. But it’s not just the existence of the card that’s important, it’s how it’s used.
At the polling station, there is a book containing the photographs of every voter in the precinct. When a Mexican voter presents his card, the poll worker looks up his photo to see if it matches. If it does, a mark is made next to the photo in the book, and the voter is allowed to cast his ballot.
At one point, a voter’s photo ID didn’t match up with her photo in the book, because she brought her previous voter ID and not her current card. She wasn’t allowed to vote and had to go home to get her current ID.
After voting, each voter must have a thumb ink-stamped. The ink mark verifies that the voter has already voted and cannot do so again. (The ink wears off after a few days.)
In contrast, the U.S. voter registration is a joke. In many states, it’s not even necessary to prove one’s citizenship, or even one’s identity.
Registrars have been instructed not to be inquisitive about applicants’ citizenship — or lack thereof.
It should come as no surprise then, that the last few years have seen more and more examples of voter fraud coming to light, including the casting of ballots by non-citizen voters.
Whenever Americans try to require photo ID, it typically gets opposed by Hispanic activists who say it’s discriminatory. That’s ironic, since photo ID is a requirement in Mexico, which is the world’s biggest Hispanic country.
The solution for the United States is to adopt a Mexican-style photo voter ID system, at government expense. Why not ? We spend money on all sorts of wasteful pork projects, why not a secure voting system?
The lower house of the Mexican Congress, the Chamber of Deputies, has 500 representatives. Every three years, all of these representatives are replaced (with no re-election allowed).
Of the total, 300 are directly elected by electoral districts, with the other 200 selected by proportional representation.
Besides the elections for the Chamber of Deputies, there are state and local elections in some parts of Mexico. Hundreds of mayors were chosen, and this time, six governorships were up for grabs.
After the dust was cleared, here are the results.
The PRI (Institutional Revolutionary Party), the former ruling party, got 36.7 percent of the total vote (and 5 of those 6 governorships). President Calderon’s PAN (National Action Party) had 28 percent of the total vote. The farther left PRD (Party of the Democratic Revolution), which almost won the presidency in 2006, only had 12.2 percent of the total vote. The Greens, the largest of the micro-parties, garnered 6.5 percent of the vote, and it went down from there.
As a result, the correlation of forces in the lower house Chamber of Deputies has changed drastically.
The PRI more than doubled its delegation, from 106 to 241 seats. That means it has 49 percent of the seats in the chamber. Add to that the 17 seats won by the Greens, who have an alliance with the PRI, and the party has a de facto majority.
The PAN, meanwhile, dropped from 206 to 147 seats and the PRD dropped from 127 to 72 seats.
What can we learn from this election about the Mexican political landscape ?
For one thing, the PRI has more than survived its previous loss of power and is now coming back as a competitive party that could actually win back the presidency in the 2012 elections.
For one thing, the party is truly national , inheriting from its one-party state days a vast network throughout the length and breadth of Mexico. Yet the PRI has successfully utilized this network in a new pluralistic political age.
As younger Mexican voters come of age, for the non-PRI parties to bring up the specter of the old PRI one-party state of yore is less and less effective.
By the same token, the PAN can no longer rest on the laurels it received by being the opposition party that overthrew the PRI in 2000.
I wouldn’t write off Calderon, however. The man is a talented political operative, and is doubtless already at work thinking of ways to work with the PRI in Congress.
Why did the PRD do so poorly? One might be inclined to blame the ongoing antics of AMLO (Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador) for the PRD’s poor showing.
AMLO, however, was quite effective in this election, just not for his own party. Though Lopez Obrador stayed in the PRD, he campaigned for two other parties (the Labor Party and Convergence) which together garnered an impressive 6 percent of the total vote, just half of the PRD’s.
In fact, in the Iztapalapa borough of Mexico City, AMLO publicly supported a Labor Party candidate against the candidate of his own PRD, and the Labor candidate won. So AMLO can’t be written off yet either.
The newly-elected representatives are set to take office on Sept. 1.
Mexico faces great challenges, including the economic downturn caused by its close association with the United States, and the ongoing drug gang wars. The country would greatly benefit from various reforms which have thus far proved unattainable.
So it would behoove President Calderon and the congressional PRI party to work together to face such problems. In fact, it’s in the interests of both to do so.
As for the upcoming 2012 presidential election, the PRI’s Enrique Pena Nieto, governor of Mexico State, and the PRD’s Marcelo Ebrard, mayor of Mexico City, look like possible standard-bearers for their respective parties.
On the other hand, a lot could happen in three years. In fact, the year 2012 could look a lot different. So stay tuned.
Allan Wall (email@example.com) recently returned to the U.S. after having resided many years in Mexico.
© 2013 Newsmax. All rights reserved.