defend our vote

In a plural society, having a reliable electoral system is essential to guarantee the representation of majorities and minorities in the political system. It doesn’t matter just who wins the Executive position; It is essential that those who legislate, determine the budget and ensure that its use responds to the interests and needs of the entire society, including those who dissent from the policies dictated or promoted by the president in office.

Defending the INE or defending democracy may sound abstract, especially when the official discourse has been dedicated to reviling the Electoral Council and has also attacked the Electoral Tribunal, while assuring that there will only be true democracy if the presidential dreams are fulfilled since “before ” (And now?) We lived in a simulated democracy, with an electoral system favorable to the “oligarchy”.

As critical writers have already pointed out, it is paradoxical that those who came to power through the current system question it and try to disappear it to replace it with a centralized system, similar to the one that caused great skepticism about the authenticity of the electoral results in 1988. It is also paradoxical to claim that the 2006 presidential elections were “fraudulent” but not the ones that then led the PRD to govern Mexico City. Should we trust the electoral bodies only when our candidate wins?

Opposing the current electoral reform is simply defending the value of each person’s vote, remembering that the votes are received by diverse citizens, we count them and we can verify them to a great extent as well, since the results are displayed in each polling place. To disqualify citizen work that makes more reliable elections possible is to disregard the efforts of thousands of people, not just the work of the Electoral Council or Tribunal.

Related Post

They challenge the suspension of the restructuring of the INE

April 11, 2023

The INE deregistered 5.6 million citizens who have died since 2014

April 7, 2023

INE orders the Presidency to withdraw statements by AMLO in the morning on voting for the opposition

March 30, 2023

Violence in the school environment

March 28, 2023

Defending the autonomy of the INE also implies making sure, as much as possible, that the register will not be “shaven” or plagued by “ghosts”, as José Woldenberg explained in an interview. Do we want those who do not agree with the government to be denied the right to vote? It has already been done: by not appearing on the electoral list, your citizenship right disappears. Do we want him to win X candidacy in a district? The list of dead or non-existent beings who, miraculously, vote in favor of that one is filled out. If today we can verify beforehand that we are on the electoral list, it is because the system has become citizenized.

Guaranteeing the right to vote is fundamental to preserving democracy. If not, why did Trump hinder mail-in voting by hampering postal efficiency in 2020? Or why the Republican Party has manipulated the design of electoral districts to favor its victory? If the system is centralized, if the appointment of the Council is submitted to the “popular will”, with the erosion and manipulation that this may entail, who will guarantee the reliability of the elections?

The current system is perfectible. We could count, for example, on a second round. But breaking up the INE two years before the elections, under a government that does not hide its desire for control and centralization, is not going to “strengthen” democracy. It can even cause chaos given the government’s lack of administrative talent: elections are organized well in advance. If civil servants are improvised, will parity lists be guaranteed, will it be verified that the ”3 of 3” is fulfilled?

Do we want an autonomous FGR and CNDH? A budget that prioritizes education, health and violence prevention? For that we need better legislatures, better parties and better leaders, who respond to the citizens and not to the president or his interests. That will not be achieved with a centralized system, captive of the party in power.

Much has been fought to achieve better representativeness, with the hope of having better legislators and governors. If we don’t defend today a system that works much better than the one in 1988, we won’t be able to improve anything in 2025. Defending the INE is defending our vote.