Talk:2018 Mexican general election

Mexico is a major country and is having a bunch of elections in the summer

I just noticed that this is not a particularly good article. I think it should be split into three parts: Presidential, Congressional, and state. I know that earlier articles don't have it this way, but Mexico didn't seem tht important. IT is. Let's get going on it, shall we?Arglebargle79 (talk) 17:01, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

@Arglebargle79: There's no need to split the article, as per the previous years (e.g. Mexican general election, 2012). A split should only happen if this article becomes too large. Please don't recreate Mexican presidential election, 2018 until that happens. Thanks, Number 57 17:25, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

BTW, there is NO Mexican General Election in 2018, just as there was no AMERICAN General Election in 2016. A general election is only in a parliamentary system, for example, the UK and Canada have GENERAL ELECTIONS, which are just for the national parliaments. There is a Presidential election and National Congressional elections. There are also STATE elections (did you know that Mexico has a federal system like the US does?) All of which, despite being on the same day, are separate. These state elections sometimes include gubernatorial ones, which are completely separate as well. So, we need to retroactivly change everything!!!!! I repeat: THERE IS NO MEXICAN GENERAL ELECTION!!!!!! 23:59, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

"General elections" can refer to both parliamentary elections in countries with a Westminster system and also joint presidential/parliamentary elections in countries with a presidential or semi-presidential system, hence why we have articles like Costa Rican general election, 2014, Panamanian general election, 2014, Uruguayan general election, 2019 etc. There's also no need to shout about this – please debate calmly. Thanks, Number 57 06:13, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Warnings towards the possibility of the PRI commiting electoral fraud

Based on the recent news coverage of today, I added this section in the most neutral manner possible. The possibility of the PRI commiting electoral hit newspapers, and from my experience is huge. It must be mentioned since early on, I believe so if it happens, there is a presedent since early on. I added this section, regarding the possible irregularities the PRI will most likely attempt to commit:

Warnings towards the possibility of the PRI commiting electoral fraud

In December 2017, Mexican newspaper Regeneracion has warned about the posibility of the PRI commiting an electoral fraud, citing the controversial law of internal security that the PRI senators approved as the means to diminish the protests towards such electoral fraud. The website Bloomberg also supported that possible outcome, with Tony Payan, director of the Houston's Mexico Center at Rice University’s Baker Institute suggesting that both vote buyout and computer hackings were possible, citting the 1988 previous electoral fraud commited by the PRI. Bloomberg's article also suggested Meade could be also receive unfair help from the the over-budget amounts of money spent in publicity by incumbent president Enrique Peña Nieto (who also campaigned with the PRI). A December 2017 article of The New York Times, reported Enrique Peña Nieto spending about 2000 million dollars on publicity, during his first 5 years as president, the largest publicity budget ever spent by a mexican President. Additionally the article mentioned concerns about 68 percent of news journalists admiting to not believe to have enough freedom of speech. To support the statement the article mentioned the time award winning news reporter Carmen Aristegui was controversially fired shortly after revealing the Mexican White House scandals (concerning a conflict of interet regarding a house owned by Enrique Peña Nieto).

During 2017, the PRI had already faced serious alegations of Electoral fraud, concerning the election of Enrique Peña Nieto's cousin Alfredo del Mazo Maza as governor of the state of Mexico. Despite the official vote results given by the INE (Electoral National Insttute) giving the win to Del Mazo, the election was marred by irregularities including reports of vote-buying, spending beyond legal campaign finance limits, and electoral counts that gave del Mazo extra votes that awarded the election to him. In November 2017, magazine Proceso published an article accusing the PRI of breaking at least 16 state laws during the elections, which were denounced 619 times. They said that all of them were broken in order to favor del Mazo during the election.

Rosvel92 (talk) 19:45, 28 December 2017 (UTC)rosvel92

Aren't there allegations of electoral fraud in pretty much any election anywhere? Sure, specific incidents should be included, and I'm sure there will be, but I question how pertinent allegations regarding a state election in 2017 are to a federal election in 2018. Prescottbush (talk) 17:05, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

I started this tread, forgot to sign. I suppose there's always news like that, but so far the only allegatons regarding a of mexican political party commiting an electoral fraud in the presidential election 2018, concern to the PRI. If I see any concerning other political party, I of course would update the article.Rosvel92 (talk) 19:45, 28 December 2017 (UTC)rosvel92

I agree with you, the Bloomberg article is an opinion piece and so I believe either the whole section should be removed or renamed as there is no evidence of 'fraud'. Also, the term 'fraud' is different to the concept of -irregularities in an election-; It's basically impossible for there to be fraud at the federal level in a country like Mexico; Cheating, Illegalities, irregularities, of course will probably happen, but they're different things. Furthermore, since there is no evidence, we cannot write about it yet. And 'internal intervention' is not a really a concept. Let's agree on a solution to this. StratoWarrior (talk) 06:02, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be mentioned that REGENERACION belongs to MORENA? They're hardly a neutral source.Waiv2017 (talk) 21:26, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Regeneración does not belong to Morena, It is a newspaper that is dedicated to political issues since 1900, long before Morena existed (2014), so it is not a Neutral accusation.

Victor Gibby (talk) 23:34, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

What are you talking about? That 'Regeneracion' is not the same as regeneracion.mx. Regeneracion.mx doesn't even have an about page and has articles with headlines such as "Meade un desastre, AMLO primer lugar en encuestas" and "Niño le canta a AMLO". It's incredibly biased and obviously cannot be considered a reliable source; it's more of an opinion blog. Also, you cannot link to twitter, seriously... This kind of talk happens in every election and is redundant unless proven to affect the process in a significant manner (in newspapers). Please provide reliable sources. StratoWarrior (talk) 06:02, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Twitter is a legit source, when the tweet comes from a verified account. Is completely accepted. Also there is no way for MORENA to pay more for publicity than current corrupt president EPN, does with public money. Also Regeneracion is not owned by MORENA. Did not you read what I added about the New York Times saying most mexico's news journalists feel threatened from publishing the real news by the PRI bribes? Who fired Aristegui for criticizing EPN?> Added Aristegui linking to the same News about Enrique Ochoa Reza making a racist tweet (added Aristegui saying the same exact thing, but Aristeg news added adds a that it was also interpreted as misognic expression) so you stop with the Regenearacion belongs to MORENA). Is something that happened and received natinal coverage and is worth of note. Also the piece you are criticizing was backed by the New York Times andRosvel92 (talk) 09:12, 22 February 2018 (UTC)Rosvel92

Haven't been involved in this discussion, but "Twitter is a legit source, when the tweet comes from a verified account. Is completely accepted." – that's completely false; see WP:SPS. Mélencron (talk) 13:51, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I can’t add the source

I’ve been trying to add sources and but for some reason it doesn’t let me. “El bronco” governor of Nuevo León, has announced that he is running and will appear on the ballot because he already collected the firms, you can google, I've been trying to add the link but I can. TexasMan34 (talk) 22:38, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Opinion polls

Something really needs to be done about the opinion polls section. I think instead of simply updating it, we should create a separate page for them. Just like the one in Spanish Wikipedia which we could translate into English. Charles Essie (talk) 18:32, 19 December 2017 (UTC) Hello can anybody please update the polls. you can found the updated polls on the Mexican wiki. https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anexo:Encuestas_de_intenci%C3%B3n_de_voto_para_la_elecci%C3%B3n_presidencial_de_M%C3%A9xico_de_2018 Leftwinguy92 (talk) 11:08, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

NPOV tag

The additions to this article by Rosvel92 seem pretty blatantly anti-PRI, as their editing history and edit summaries on other articles (such as EPN's) would seem to indicate. At the very least, it's WP:UNDUE (especially in view of the general lack of other prose content within the article). Mélencron (talk) 02:49, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

They are, but I've noticed Rosvel92 has also added other relevant content(such as the Anaya/Meade investigations) so it might be better to just check/change what Rosvel92 writes. StratoWarrior (talk) 02:41, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't believe the article is biased, can we remove the NPOV tag? If anything I would say, it is being too favorable towards the PRI, and EPN (perhaps the most hated mexican president ever).Rosvel92 (talk) 21:32, 15 March 2018 (UTC)Rosvel92

Anaya and Meade Investigations

The investigations regarding the possible Anaya's money laundering and Meade's stay in SEDESOL seem to be getting bigger (the latter more than the other). It seems that the outcome of the election might actually be determined by the investigations. We should expand on this and maybe create a section for it. StratoWarrior (talk) 02:38, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Please add more, I've added more but is not enough. Also added about Odebretch (which also is super huge).Rosvel92 (talk) 07:58, 7 March 2018 (UTC)Rosvel92

Someone wants to delete and start over the article about current criminal president Enrique Peña Nieto

The article was not biased at all, everything was sourced. But now that person is removing content without explanation, I see way more bias now than there was before. I suspect he wants to change EPN's article into something more favorable in order to benefit the political campaign of PRI's new candidate Jose Antonio Meade. Anyone who reads reads mexican news, knows EPN is a heavilly despised man within his country, and is seen as a criminal, most people want him jailed and also disprove his presidency. help me by going to EPN's article discussion page, and telling the editor that je should re-add all the content he removed, and if he wants to turn EPN's article into something more favorable, well he better start looking for favorable news about EPN, which are too few and far in-between, and mostly from bribed sources like Televisa and Milenio. I had added a bit about how AMLO and Anaya propose to investigate him, and he removed it without a legit explanation.Rosvel92 (talk) 04:39, 19 April 2018 (UTC)rosvel92

Sorry, but I think comments like those you've made here on this talk page show that you haven't made a serious attempt to remain impartial regardless of the activities of the PRI and that the POV tags are absolutely merited. Mélencron (talk) 05:08, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Use of acronyms

Is it correct to use acronyms like “AMLO” or “EPN” in an encyclopedic article? I know is the way how they are colloquially referred, but an encyclopedia should be less irreverent. In fact the Spanish article use the full last name like any normal academic source would. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 08:15, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Not correct to use them as they're nicknames. Please revert to spelling out their whole last name. Gumbi93 (talk) 14:55, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Meade's party

Although Meade is the PRI's candidate, he isn't actually a member of the party, according to The Guardian (The PRI … elected a non-member as candidate, José Antonio Meade) and The Financial Times (Mr Meade, who himself is not a party member). Should this be noted in the article? — Kawnhr (talk) 17:11, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

It should be noted, considering he was chosen for that reasonGumbi93 (talk) 20:48, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Revisited

So I see that Meade is now listed in the infobox and results table as an independent. I'm not sure about this, it seems like an overcorrection to me. As I understand it, despite not being a member of the party, Meade is nonetheless the candidate of the PRI— not of the coalition, but of the PRI itself. That would be why the PRI changed its rules to allow Meade its nomination (and why he was nominated at a PRI gathering) instead of the party just endorsing an independent bid, and why articles will occasionally clarify that Meade is technically not a member of any party, etc. — Kawnhr (talk) 00:07, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

A hypercorrection, or something darker. He is not classifed as an independent by the electoral authority: the independents are Bronco and Mrs Zavala, who withdrew. He might not be a member of the party, but he is its candidate. One doesn't require the other. And at a packed stadium, Meade officially became the first non-member presidential candidate for the governing Institutional Revolutionary Party, or PRI, in its nearly 90-year history. Moscow Mule (talk) 18:50, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

And I'm on my second revert. "PRI elige a José Antonio Meade como candidato a la Presidencia de la República" (PRI elects Meade as its presidential candidate). He may not be a member, but he is its candidate. Moscow Mule (talk) 20:51, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

And another source in English: "Mexico’s ruling Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) will officially put forth its candidate for the July 1 presidential election. Since November, the PRI has supported former Finance Minister Jose Antonio Meade Kuribreña as the first non-party member for the presidency." [1] He may personally be a political independent, but he is in no way, shape or form an independent candidate. Moscow Mule (talk) 21:06, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

He's clearly affiliated with the PRI (as his article states), was nominated by the PRI, and the Mexican electoral authority doesn't recognise him as an independent either. That seems to be enough of a rationale to designate him as a PRI candidate, although it should be noted somewhere that he's formally non-partisan. JackWilfred (talk) 21:18, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Mention the use of bots?

Should there be a mention of Peñabots (bots used by the Institutional Revolutionary Party) and the use of bots of other parties for these elections? Social media is playing a bigger part in these elections than previous ones.Gumbi93 (talk) 14:54, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Results

I added the tables that will show the results, if you have any questions or suggestions, please let me know, on Election Day, I’ll be updating the tables with the results for senators and governorships. TexasMan34 (talk) 18:09, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Social Encounter Party (PES) is left out of the largest graph in the article. Gumbi93 (talk) 17:23, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Disputed Statement

José Antonio Meade is not part of the PRI, he is an independent candidate, he is the candidate for the alliance Todos por México, which contains 3 political parties, not only the PRI. - Social Studies Rules (talk) 17:19, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Correct. He is not a member of the party. They changed the rules so he wouldn't have to be (covered in article). He was however elected (selected, chosen, appointed...) as the party's candidate:

Mexico’s Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) to nominate Jose Antonio Meade as presidential candidate

PRI elige a José Antonio Meade como candidato a la Presidencia de la República

at a packed stadium, Meade officially became the first non-member presidential candidate for the governing Institutional Revolutionary Party, or PRI, in its nearly 90-year history

He is not an independent candidate; he was nominated by the PRI and presented to the coalition by the PRI. Independent candidacies have to go through an entirely different process (Bronco, Zavala...). But I'm out of reverts. Moscow Mule (talk) 21:27, 1 July 2018 (UTC) (Also, please don't miss the earlier discussion above, under the heading #Meade's party.)

This seems pretty cut and dry to me. It's true that Meade is not actually a party member, but every source indicates that he was nevertheless named as the party's candidate— an unusual situation, but not impossible, since the PRI specifically loosened its rules to allow it. JackWilfred made another good point, that Meade's candidacy did not go through the channels available for independent candidates like Zavala and Rodríguez, and is not recognized by the INE as an independent candidate. While this is obviously not a 1:1 comparison, just look at Sauli Niinistö in the Finnish presidential election earlier this year, and note that he specifically went through the process of registering as an independent. While it should obviously be noted that Meade is not a party member, listing him as an independent candidate is incorrect. — Kawnhr (talk) 22:08, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Exactly. There are two ways of running for president in Mexico: as an independent (Bronco, Zavala), which entails collecting large numbers of signatures and is very complicated, or with a party's nomination behind you. Meade won the PRI's nomination; he is the candidate of the PRI. A look at any of the news coverage of this election will make that clear. Having him labelled as an "independent" here would be baffling, to say the least. He is running with the full force of that party (& the other two) behind him. Moscow Mule (talk) 23:02, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Assassinated candidates

Over a hundred candidates have been assassinated during the campaign, but I think there hasn't been a follow up in this. --Jamez42 (talk) 06:34, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Allegations of foreign intervention section

User:Frankfrancisco1 reverted my edits of restoring sourced info claiming that I was "using biased language to falsely accuse the United States of influencing the elections in Mexico." I want to get a discussion going on the removed section. User:CHUI372 David O. Johnson (talk) 23:20, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

• The guy who keeps deleting the whole paragraph has now created three different accounts for the same purpouse. I found it interesting that he would make those accusations towards you, given that the paragraph was actually written by me some months ago. I suggest semi-protection of the article to prevent further vandalism.--CHUI372 (talk) 00:49, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

• My guess is that User:Hectorperez3311,User:Frankfrancisco1, User:H15a1a1 and User:Libertydemocracy are all sockpuppets.

In fact, User:Libertydemocracy has an investigation ongoing here: [2]

(Here is their talk page: [3]).David O. Johnson (talk) 01:42, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Senate (seats before)

We need to clarify whether this column indicates the seats won at the previous election or the seats currently held: the figures as they now appear on the table (34+55+7+5+19+1+8) add up to 129. The party strengths as they currently stand can be found here: Integración LXIII Legislatura. I think the discrepancy is due to the PANAL's senator (Mónica Arriola Gordillo), who died in 2016 and was replaced with her suplente, Manuel Cárdenas Fonseca, who sits as independent. Or Alejandro Encinas, who was one of the PRD's 7 before he resigned the party and became an independent? One of those is getting counted twice. (On related point, someone went and totally jumped the gun on the Senate article, updating the totals with these election results while the previous Senate is still in session and before the new intake have been sworn in.) Moscow Mule (talk) 04:54, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Just get rid of the column. It's usually only used in elections in which half or a third of the seats are up to be filled. I don't see why it's been added there on the first place.--Aréat (talk) 05:45, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

I think the column should be kept, as far as the seats, I think you should use the info provided by the official senate website TexasMan34 (talk) 06:01, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

We always use seats won at the last election as the comparator for changes in the results table. Agree with Aréat that the column for seats before is inappropriate for elections where all the seats are up for election and this is not done on other articles. Number 57 13:23, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Exactly, we compare actual elections results from each other. Otherwise it's misleading : a party who would have seen several independents join it mid legislature could look like it decreased even though it did better than last time, or a party that was brought down by an important split of its member after the previous election could look like it progressed when it actually did far worse, etc. That's why it's not included this way. You can add a table of the composition of the outgoing parliament in the part about the differents political forces at play, like it's often done. But the result table should portray comparison between elections results. Cordially.--Aréat (talk) 13:54, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

So, the +/- column is now comparing against the 2012 results, not the current standing? No argument with that approach but if so, it should be footnoted & explained in the article, so we don't have to have this conversation again. Moscow Mule (talk) 15:36, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes. However, I'm not sure this footnote is needed – I don't believe we have to footnote it on any other results table. Number 57 16:03, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

In addition to the potential ambiguity with the other set of figures (seats held at dissolution), I could imagine it being challenged as WP:OR or unsourced, but shrug. Moscow Mule (talk) 19:52, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 July 2018

Change House of Deputies results to reflect updated numbers and seat count. Agomez511 (talk) 22:10, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — LeoFrank  ^Talk 06:14, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Empty proportional votes columns

Were the votes even separates between the FPTP and the proportional system? Or did the voters maybe vote for a candidate in the constituencies, and the total of the votes given to a party through its candidates was used for the proportional seats? --Aréat (talk) 16:42, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Unless the electoral system has changed since the last election, I believe two separate ballots are cast (see Mexican general election, 2012#Chamber of Deputies). Number 57 19:05, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

No: one ballot paper for Deputies; another for the Senate. But voters cast only one vote per chamber. The PR results are calculated on the basis of the parties' district and state votes (ignoring the named candidates and focusing on the party logos, if you will). Moscow Mule (talk) 22:24, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

How come the results were different in the previous election, then? --Aréat (talk) 01:01, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Different how? In the 2015 midterms? Moscow Mule (talk) 03:20, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Vote totals

@CHUI372: Which of these sources is the final vote tally for the presidential election? I noticed an IP just changed them. Cheers, Number 57 17:49, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

• • @Number 57:It seems to me that the first one, the one from computos2018.ine.mx is the final official tally. Cheers.--CHUI372 (talk) 23:08, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Unable to find the source of the results by each state

I have found that there is no source for the state results despite it being listed there. Where did we get these figures? Delta049 (talk) 17:33, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Rationale for placing "Opinion Poll" section at the top

What is the rationale for placing opinion poll section at the top of the page, considering it is an already completed election? This is something seldom seen, but often in pages for Mexican elections and therefore I would like to know about the reason behind it. Usually the opinion polls are placed just above results. MrMarshMan (talk) 17:18, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Good point. I have moved it to a more normal location in the article. Cheers, Number 57 21:18, 27 May 2024 (UTC)