VZCZCXRO5729
RR RUEHCD RUEHGD RUEHHO RUEHMC RUEHNG RUEHNL RUEHRD RUEHRS RUEHTM
DE RUEHME #3834/01 1921831
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 111831Z JUL 06
FM AMEMBASSY MEXICO
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 2093
INFO RUEHXC/ALL US CONSULATES IN MEXICO COLLECTIVE
RUEHCV/AMEMBASSY CARACAS 1203
RUEHOT/AMEMBASSY OTTAWA 2238
RHEHNSC/NSC WASHDC

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 MEXICO 003834 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SENSITIVE 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PGOV PINR PREL MX
SUBJECT: SRE BRIEFS DIPLOMATIC CORPS ON ELECTION 
 
 
¶1.  (SBU) Summary:  On July 7, the SRE held its second 
post-electoral briefing for the diplomatic community.  The 
briefing was presided over by Foreign Secretary Derbez, 
although Federal Electoral Institute (IFE) Counselor 
Alejandra Latapi, one of the two IFE representatives in 
attendance, led the presentation.  Latapi used the event to 
seek to refute the allegations of electoral improprieties 
that have been raised by PRD candidate Andres Manuel Lopez 
Obrador (AMLO), including alleged manipulation of IFE's 
preliminary vote count (PREP), and the exclusion of some 
2.5 million votes from the PREP.  Latapi defended the 
transparency of the election process, reiterating that it 
had been found to be free and fair by numerous domestic and 
international observers.  While the briefing was 
well-prepared, detailed, and persuasive, it had a very 
defensive tone, reflecting the pressure that IFE is under 
to defend a process that has come under strident attack 
from AMLO's supporters.  End summary. 
 
¶2.  (U) On July 7, the SRE held a briefing for members of 
the diplomatic community on the status of the Mexican 
presidential election, including the allegations of 
irregularities raised by AMLO.  The briefing -- presided 
over by Foreign Secretary Luis Derbez and conducted 
principally by IFE Counselor Alejandra Latapi -- attracted 
approximately 100 members of the diplomatic community, 
including numerous ambassadors, reflecting the high level 
of international interest in the process.  Latapi's 
well-organized briefing sought to forcefully refute the 
most significant allegations of electoral irregularities 
that AMLO has raised in the days since the July 2 election. 
 
Why Did the Preliminary Vote Count Consistently Show 
Calderon in the Lead? 
--------------------------------------------- --------------- 
 
¶3.  (U) Latapi began the session by seeking to refute 
AMLO's allegation that the PREP had somehow been 
manipulated to show Calderon in the lead from the very 
beginning of the count.  Latapi explained that the PREP -- 
conducted between 20:00 on Election Day, July 2, and 20:00 
on July 3 -- automatically recorded precinct results in the 
chronological order in which they were received by IFE and 
that there was no possibility for manipulating the count. 
She added that in fact, the very first precinct results, 
which IFE began to receive shortly after the first polls 
closed on July 2 at 18:00 (Mexico City time), actually 
showed the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) in the 
lead.  Between approximately 18:30 and 19:45, the lead 
changed several times among the three major parties. 
However, by 20:00, when all polls across Mexico had closed 
and the PREP became operational, Calderon had again taken 
the lead in the count, never to relinquish it. 
 
¶4.  (U) Latapi explained Calderon's persistent lead by 
noting that precincts located in northern Mexico and in 
urban areas outside Mexico City -- Calderon strongholds -- 
generally delivered their tally sheets to local IFE offices 
more quickly than precincts located in rural areas or in 
Mexico City.  PRD strongholds did not report in large 
number until much later in the evening, by which time 
Calderon had amassed a sufficiently large lead that he 
never relinquished first place in the PREP. 
 
¶5.  (U) Latapi also noted that not all precincts reported 
their results in time to be included in the PREP.  In 
particular, results from some remote areas were not 
reported until after 20:00 on July 3 and therefore were not 
included in the PREP, although they were included in the 
official district count compiled on July 5-6. 
 
How Did 2.5 Million Votes Go Missing? 
------------------------------------- 
 
¶6.  (U) Latapi sought to refute the PRD's allegation that 
IFE had "lost" over 2.5 million votes, insisting that the 
manner in which IFE had handled these votes was consistent 
with the procedure agreed to by IFE and the political 
parties back in February 2006, and was completely 
transparent.  She explained that in February, the political 
parties and IFE had come to an agreement that vote tallies 
presenting certain specified types of inconsistencies would 
not be included in the PREP, so as not to slow down the 
preliminary count.  Such tally sheets would be set aside in 
a "file of inconsistencies," for closer review and eventual 
inclusion in the official district-wide count.  She 
conceded that although IFE probably could have done a 
better job of explaining this arrangement to the press, 
these votes were at all times trackable on the PREP website 
 
MEXICO 00003834  002 OF 003 
 
 
and that the political parties were always well aware of 
how they were being handled. 
 
¶7.  (U) Latapi explained that most of the vote tally sheets 
in the "file of inconsistencies" reflected only minor 
irregularities that had no effect on the vote count:  of 
the 11,184 precinct tally sheets included in the "file of 
inconsistencies," over 8,000 of them involved tally sheets 
in which the election workers neglected to record a "0" 
where a particular party did not receive any votes (or 
where there were no null votes or votes for unregistered 
candidates).  In other words, where the election workers 
left a blank for a party or category receiving no votes, 
rather than recording a "0," the tally sheet was added to 
the file of inconsistencies, for tabulation later. 
 
Why Did AMLO Lead the District Retabulation for the First 
20 Hours? 
--------------------------------------------- --------------- 
 
¶8.  (U) Latapi emphasized that during the official district 
vote count conducted on July 5-6, IFE recorded returns in 
the order in which they were reported by each of the 300 
electoral districts.  Latapi strongly implied, as post has 
previously reported (reftel), that in addition to any 
legitimate requests made by PRD representatives during the 
district retabulation process for recounting the votes from 
specific ballot boxes that presented inconsistencies, the 
PRD representatives also appeared to intentionally engage 
in dilatory tactics in precincts favorable to the PAN.  As 
a result, PRD strongholds reported their retabulated 
results earlier than PAN strongholds, creating the 
impression during much of the retabulation that AMLO was 
ahead.  She noted that notwithstanding criticism of the 
PREP, this year the PREP proved even more accurate than in 
the 2000 election: while the difference between Calderon's 
margin in the PREP (1.04%) and in the final tabulation 
(0.58%) was 0.46%, the difference between Fox's lead in 
2000 in the PREP and in the final retabulation was 0.48%. 
 
The Election Process Was Transparent 
------------------------------------ 
 
¶9.  (U) Reiterating the transparency of the electoral 
process, Latapi reminded the audience that Mexico's 
political parties had observed and "accompanied" IFE in 
every step of the process, from the preparation of the 
voter registry to the counting of the ballots on Election 
Day to the retabulation of votes by IFE's district 
councils.  She added that of the over 130,000 precincts 
nationwide, 87% had the representative of at least one 
political party present and over 78% had the 
representatives of at least two parties present. 
Approximately 15% of precincts also had non-party observers 
present. 
 
The Election Was Widely Found to Be Free and Fair 
--------------------------------------------- ---- 
 
¶10.  (U) Latapi emphasized that the election has been 
widely recognized as free and fair by both domestic and 
international actors and observers.  She said that of 
Mexico's eight political parties, five have recognized the 
process as free and fair, with only the three members of 
the PRD-led "Alliance for the Benefit of Everyone" refusing 
to do so.  Likewise, she noted that civil society 
organizations including business groups, certain labor 
unions, and the Catholic church have recognized that the 
election was fair.  She said that of the 26 election 
observer groups working through the UN Development Program, 
24 have recognized the process as free and fair.  Finally, 
she said that such foreign and international organizations 
as the EU, the Council of Europe, the UN, the OAS, the 
National Democratic Institute, the Interamerican Union of 
Electoral Organizations, and groups of European and Latin 
American parliamentarians, have all recognized the 
transparency of the election. 
 
¶11.  (U) During a question and answer session at the end of 
IFE's presentation, the Canadian Ambassador noted that the 
media had reported a lot of inconsistent information about 
the electoral process, and he recommended that in order to 
prevent such misinformation from influencing public 
opinion, that IFE be more proactive in communicating 
accurate information.  Foreign Secretary Derbez closed the 
session by noting that he would look into the possibility 
of organizing a briefing with staff of the electoral 
tribunal, to clarify this process for the diplomatic 
community. 
 
MEXICO 00003834  003 OF 003 
 
 
 
Comment:  IFE on the Defensive 
------------------------------ 
 
¶12.  (SBU) Although the briefing was well-organized, 
detailed, and persuasive, a defensive tone prevailed 
throughout.  The briefing left the impression that IFE 
realized its reputation was at risk from persistent PRD 
criticisms and that the time had come for it to begin 
mounting a strident defense. 
 
 
Visit Mexico City's Classified Web Site at 
http://www.state.sgov.gov/p/wha/mexicocity 
 
GARZA