True in every election there are errors in every election. There were other observers besides the EU, which is never mentioned at all and these observers are from Global Exchange. They were also the largest teams of international observers in Mexico for the 1994 and 2000 Presidential election. And they received accreditation by the Federal Electoral Institute (IFE) to aid in evaluation of the electoral process and to determine compliance with international standards of transparency, fairness, and accountability. From their Final report.

While progress has been made in developing and strengthening Mexican electoral institutions, it is evident that the country is still in the process of consolidating democratic practices. Electoral fraud in the form of coercion and vote buying continues to be a problem in many areas of Mexico. Structural weaknesses continue to impede the full transparency and accountability necessary for functional democracy. These also hinder the efficiency and efficacy of programs to educate and involve citizens in the electoral process.

The extensive use of television messages (“spots”) with negative and sometimes personal content has also caused concern. One concern is that the negative advertising has obscured the content of proposed political platforms. Many citizens have expressed discomfort, frustration, and fatigue in the face of the ongoing mudslinging. Disputes over advertising content were taken up by the IFE and the TRIFE. In one case, the TRIFE banned television “spots” that it ruled inaccurately manipulated images and facts to portray candidate Andrés Manuel Lopez Obrador as a “Danger to Mexico”, overruling the IFE, which had given the green light to the same “spots”.

Finally, observers noted that the IFE (federal) voting booths were of poorer quality than the Consejero Electoral (state) booths. IFE booths did not provide adequate privacy which led to a less secret vote.

Galbraith is a former professor of mine whose opinion I greatly respect. I have read about the statistical anomalies in the PREP reporting, and, as he says, they should be looked into. However, a statistical anomaly is nothing in and of itself…it could be just a blip. Also, the PREP is not official, so why would you manipulate the PREP? The only reason (as Galbraith points out in the comments) is to substantiate actual ballot box fraud. But that means there would have had to have been massive fraud involving thousands of PAN party officials and election workers. It would have also required the complicity of thousands of PRD party officials, who are supposed to be keeping an eye on all these things. And all those committing the fraud would have had to been smart enough to manipulate their own casilla just enough to put Calderon ahead of AMLO, but not enough so that the fraud would be obvious. I don’t buy it.

The IFE also opened and counted about 2% of the ballot boxes after the election, to check for fraud and to make sure the results were accurate. They reported MINOR errors, but the errors didn’t favor either candidate and the results were generally accurate.

There were errors in the election, but there are errors in every election…perfection is not possible when dealing with 42 million votes. AMLO has submitted his evidence to IFE, and if the evidence shows fraud, then IFE should recount or annull or do whatever it needs to do. But, so far, I have not seen ANY evidence supporting AMLO’s charges of massive, widespread electoral fraud. Polls in Mexico show that a majority of people (55-60%) beleive the election was clean. And AMLO has probably lost the support of many people with his statements and actions of the last few weeks…read his recent letter to Calderon and Calderon’s response…many Mexicans question his commitment to the rule of law. Let’s also not forget that AMLO is a former PRIista…he is not a politcal novice who would not plan for or expect fraud from the other side.