What if Gore hadn't loved our democracy?

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by DanS
This is not an accurate description of what monitors do. It's more sophisticated. Not only do they look to see that the obvious bad stuff doesn't go on, but also they examine the processes that have been set up in order to ensure that the vote count is conducted properly.

Find me where those monitors were allowed to review the actual data processing by the electoral institute.

It was a close vote. And no vote in a democracy is ever perfect. I readily admit that the vote count could have been manipulated a point or whatever -- enough in this case to change the outcome. However, independent random polling verified the broad outlines of the vote count. Given this, Obrador has a choice of whether to try to gain more support from the public for a future election or to revolt. People who love democracy concede the election and don't undermine the institutions that may provide them legitimacy in the future.

Independent random polling went both ways. On election night Calderón began quoting those sources which gave him the win while Obrador began quoting those sources which gave him the win. Morseo, practically every poll made during the two weeks before the election had Obrador on top.

[C0ckney]

Originally posted by Vanguard

I assure you that I am not the only one who feels this way. There are, in fact, many people in the United States with a sense of honor.

re-arrange these four words: dead, a, horse, flogging.

[Vanguard]

Originally posted by C0ckney


re-arrange these four words: dead, a, horse, flogging.

a horse flogging dead. How's that?

_______________________________________

Back on the topic of conceeding elections. If the candidate who conceeds an election "loves democracy", then it is a fair question to ask: "What about the other guy"?

What about someone (like G.W. Bush in 2000) who declared himself the winner in a race that was really still too close to call-------- and which he, in the final analysis, almost certainly lost?

Someone who used the courts to prevent the counting of votes? Someone who's brother went to very great lengths to supress the voting of people likely to vote for the other candidate? Someone who argued before the Supreme Court that his rights were being violated by an attempt to count the votes of the people of the United States? Someone who, despite getting a minority of the popular vote in his fradulent, stolen election, none the less claimed a mandate for far reaching change in US domestic policy?

What would you say about someone like this, if you believed that Al Gore's concession showed a love of democracy? Surely you would have to say that someone like that hated democracy and only wanted to win, no matter what the cost his country.

And why would anyone want to vote for such a man, or anyone associated with him?

[Master Zen]

Because submission to the Right is perfectly acceptable to people like DanS as can be inferred by the title of this thread. Asking for transparency and justice -if you are the Left- is clearly wrong.

[DanS]

You can infer whatever comes into your head, but I did not imply that. I have been on the losing side of a very close election, and after your judicial options are exhausted, you have to move on. It's the correct thing to do, if you are a democrat. Right, left, or crazy (like Obrador). My boss thought he was robbed, so it's not as if you have to live in Mexico or be a leftist to feel like you were robbed in an election.

With regard to legal challenges, the judiciary is not going to want to hear what you have to say, because they don't want to get involved. So you have to ask yourself whether even legal challenges are the best way forward.

At heart, I don't think you're a democrat. Neither is Obrador. He wants to set up his own little dictatorship and be chummy with the other dictators of Latin America.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by DanS
You can't have democracy without respect for the election outcome, f.e.

And if the outcome is obtained fraudulently, is it democractic to respect that outcome or fight it? Democrafcy isn't a game. It's not about who wins. It's about the people having the final say. In Mexico, their final say was stolen from them . . . again! When is it enough? When should you "NO MAS!"?

Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it,

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by C0ckney
i cannot believe that 6 years on people are STILL bleating and moaning about bush's first election victory.

Yeah, cuz stolen elections should just be forgotten.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by DanS
What if Nixon hadn't loved our democracy, Vanguard?

Nixon conceded.

Only because he was informed in no uncertain terms that the military wouldn't support him.

[chequita guevara]

I see one of three outcomes for Mexico. In the order of most likely outcomes:

#1, Obrador doesn't love democracy enough, and chickens out, and the movement peters out.

#2, Obrador continues with his plan to create a new government, he, along with many leaders of the PRD and its fellow travelors, are assassinated and disappeared.

#3, Revolution. Obrador creates a new government and replaces the old one. Democracy prevails for the first time in well over a century in Mexico.

[Kuciwalker]

#4, Obrador continues with his plan to create a new government. The actual instruments of government ignore him and it's just a sham.

[chequita guevara]

#4 leads to either #1 or #3, hence the pointlessness of mentioning it.

If Obrador is serious, then he's going to try and create a situation of dual government. That can only be resolved one of three, four ways. The actual fourth way is civil war, but I think if it came to that, the military would side with the current government, since they themselves are corrupt.

Once a dual government exists, one will have to do away with the other. Frankly, I dojn't see the government letting it get that far. As long as Obrador lives, his movement is a threat. And it's not like the Mexican government has any qualms about killing its politicians and its people.

Given that the PRD controls a number of states, as well as the Districto Federal, a shadow government could have real authority.

[Kuciwalker]

He could end up like the Emperor of the United States.

[chequita guevara]

The difference between Emperor Norton I and AMLO is that no one took Norton seriously. While Americans don't seem to be taking him seriously, millions of Mexicans are, especially in the capital, where approximately 1/3rd of all Mexicans live.


Assuming he's serious:
If he creates his government, he can't let the other government continue for any length of time. He'll have to do away with it, which means arresting the government. The government knows that too, so they will likely try to act first. They can't afford to ignore him, cuz he has governors and the capital behind him. He has a real base of power, unlike Norton I.

[Kuciwalker]

How exactly would he go about arresting the government?

If he actually used force against them it would be called a coup. Most people don't blame leaders for resisting coups...

[chequita guevara]

You arrest the government the same way any revolution arrests the government. You send people in and detain them.

As for it being a coup or not, so what? If the government is undemocratic, why should we care?