More institutional reform in Mexico?

On Monday, President Felipe Calderón announced plans for some major structural reforms to Mexico’s political system (more here, here, and here). Among the numerous reforms announced, there are two I find both interesting and troubling. First, Calderón is going to try and push for allowing the immediate reelection of legislators and mayors. The second is the reduction in the number of legislators, presumably by reducing the number of legislators elected through proportional representation. I have written and the prohibition on reelection here before, please read that story for more background. While the issue of reelection comes up periodically, this time is notable both for the president’s public support and some signs that the other two major parties will also support it.

From the point of democratic theory, reelection is almost a necessary requisite for inducing both representation and accountability. Most of the arguments in favor of reelection are largely based on the theoretical benefits of reelection, and in fact, I know of no pundits or academics that are opposed to allowing for reelection in Mexico. Whenever reelection becomes a topic worthy of newspaper coverage, it is almost invariably in support of the reform, with these two most recent editorials in El Universal rehashing many of the same arguments in favor of reelection. The two major ones are: 1) reelection will force legislators to be accountable to voters, since voters will get to pass judgment after a single term, and 2) reelection will lead to a more professional legislature with institutional memory and career politicians dedicated to a legislative career.

One of the problems is, most Mexicans are against reelection, and this has been demonstrated again and again in national surveys. Some of the public resistance to reelection may be misguided based on a misinterpretation of Francisco Madero’s slogan of “effective suffrage, no reelection” during the 1910 revolution. Its not clear how this public resistance will manifest itself if the rules are changed, but it should not be ignored.

The other problem with the arguments in favor of reelection is that they ignore the complex interplay of numerous rules and practices that may work against the supposed benefits of reelection. In terms of the first benefit, greater accountability to voters, there are two issues that may impede accountability. First are the methods of candidate selection in Mexico. The use of primaries at the local level is growing, but there are still numerous cases where party leaders choose the candidate to be placed on the ballot without any voter input. The discretionary control that is written into party statutes and implemented in practice has numerous consequences for the relationship between representatives and voters. As the laws stand now, Mexico’s parties have complete control over who is placed on the ballot, meaning there is the possibility incumbent legislators could be forced off the ballot for angering party leaders (although likely a remote possibility). However, the greater issue is that legislators are going to be most responsive to those who help them get on the ballot and win the election. Understanding the relative role of party elites and voters in getting on the ballot and winning is crucial for understanding to whom the legislator will be most accountable. One recent editorial spent a single sentence on this issue, but really the benefits of reelection cannot be understood without a serious discussion of democratic candidate selection procedures. Second, Mexico’s politicians have a long history of progressive ambition, meaning they move around to various positions in political parties, as elected representatives, in the federal or state bureaucracy, or moving back and forth between politics and academia. While much of this is likely due to institutional rules that force this type of behavior, it is also a norm that may be hard to change. This type of ambition is fairly common in Latin America, even in places that allow reelection. The comparison is key, because in Latin American countries, party leaders exert fairly strong control over who gets on the ballot, and reelection to the same post is typically not a common goal for many legislators. Just because reelection may be allowed in Mexico, does not alter the goals of party leaders which may run against allowing individuals to develop strong bases of power in a single district, nor will it change in the short term the long term practice of changing positions every few years. In addition, since Mexico does allow non-consecutive reelection, when individuals do serve more than one term, they are more likely to be reelected through the proportional representation (PR) lists. The presence of the PR lists complicates the link between voters and representatives, if the informal practice of seeking reelection through the PR lists continues.

The above discussion leads to the potential problems with the second argument for reelection, a more professionalized legislature. Mexico already has a fairly powerful legislature, not only compared to its past prior to the late 1990s, but also compared to other Latin American legislatures. Allowing reelection may lead to more individuals with longer legislative careers who have greater experience navigating the legislative process. I do agree that professionalization is a problem. Right now, every three years the lower house, the Chamber of Deputies, is completely turned over. Since there are typically around 15-20% of legislators in each legislative term that have experience, these individuals help the newcomers learn the ropes. But, looking at the introduction of bills and the number of bills voted upon, the first year of each three year term is pretty thin in terms of activity. What we do see, is almost a year of wasted time every three years, and in the final year, a number of legislators who leave office early in search of other positions. Allowing reelection may lead to more legislative activity (although for better or worse really is something I can’t comment on). The other problem reelection might solve, is that there are a number of legislators who do virtually nothing. In terms of initiating a single bill, there are roughly 30% of legislators who can’t even do that, and another roughly 15-20% who either initiate their own bill or sign their name to someone else’s bill. These individuals show up to vote (although absenteeism on floor votes is also extremely high), but other than being warm bodies, there are a significant number of legislators who do not perform their most basic duty, to write legislation.

Yet, reelection might not be a panacea for solving these problems. Most legislators do not have the resources to engage in the research necessary to write good legislation. The party leaders have enormous control over the allocation of resources and staff, and without changing these internal rules and practices, Mexico’s legislators may not perform much differently.

The other potential reform I want to discuss is the reduction in the number of proportional representation legislators, typically referred to as los plurinominales, or for short, los pluris. Mexico’s Chamber of Deputies currently has 500 seats, 300 elected through single-member district plurality elections much like in the U.S., and 200 elected through a closed party list. The Senate has 128 seats, 32 of which are also selected through closed party lists. Each state legislature also has a varying number of pluris. Mexico first added these pluris way back in 1963 as a concession to opposition parties, and the PR seats were traditionally the only way the opposition parties could gain seats, as the ruling PRI (Institutional Revolutionary Party) completely dominated all of the district elections. Now, the pluris are typically chosen by the national party leadership of each major party, feature most of the key party leaders in both the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate, and are also used as patronage to hand out seats to important interest groups. There is some public anger against the pluris, largely because voters have absolutely no say over who can be placed on these lists or who ends up in the most powerful positions in the legislature. During the 2009 mid-term election, there was a small but vocal movement advocating for annulling one’s vote, in a protest against the perceived lack of responsiveness of the political system. One of the major demands of this movement was the elimination of the pluris. Some websites and facebook pages are now popping up pushing for their elimination, and a number of commentators are advocating for their elimination or reduction (here, here, here, and here).

I generally think this is a terrible idea, and there exist a couple of alternatives that may deal with the perceived unresponsiveness of the pluris. One recent editorial suggests that they get in the way and have no reason to exist. After looking at the evidence of what legislators do, not only do I disagree with this claim, but I found the opposite is true. It is the district legislators who are more likely to do nothing. Why is this the case? I think it is because the parties put their more experienced and talented people on the lists. Evidence is key in the discussion of eliminating the pluris. There definitely seems to be more public support for eliminating the pluris than reelection, so if reelection did not pass, but the reduction or elimination of pluris did, it is likely the legislature will perform even worse than it already does.

However, the major reason I think eliminating the pluris is a terrible idea, is that this might lead to a resurgence of PRI dominance through district elections. The PRI still has the best organized party in Mexico, and the reduction of the pluris could nearly cripple the center-left Party of the Democratic Revolution (although they are doing a good job destroying themselves), and return to one-party dominance in a number of states where the center-right National Action Party is not competitive. The party list seats were implemented to increase competition into the Mexican political system, and Mexico is not that far removed from the days of one-party dominance. Using proportional representation helps balance out disproportionality that comes from only using single-member districts.

How to deal with the lack of responsiveness of the party list legislators? The most basic is to open up the candidate selection of who occupies the lists. This could be done by using open-list PR, allowing voters to rank members of the list on a separate ballot, or through more direct primaries to allow voters to have a voice of who gets placed on the ballot. Another possible reform is to promote the increased use of dual candidacy. In most countries that employ a mixed electoral system like Mexico, candidates are allowed to run in a district race and also simultaneously be placed on the party list. Mexico’s major parties rarely use dual candidacy (although the PAN uses it more than the PRD or the PRI). If the party list candidates were forced to also run in a district race, then they would be more visible to voters, and potentially, more responsive. One interesting proposition is what is done in Japan, known as the “best loser” provision. In Japan, district candidates who lose are ranked on the party list after the election according how they performed in their district, encouraging them to do their best to attract votes in the district races regardless of their ability to win. I could envision in Mexico a system where the pluris are nothing more than those candidates who lost in the district race, rather a completely separate group of candidates who never have to campaign or communicate with voters. Electing losers has its own sets of problems and created controversy in a number of places such as Ukraine, New Zealand, and Japan (see numerous posts here this post about dual candidacy in mixed electoral systems). Yet, these types of changes would not only increase the responsiveness of the pluris, but also not lead to the potentially undesired consequence of reducing party competition in Mexico.

I do not want to come across as completely opposing either reelection or reducing the number of party list legislators. However, the lack of serious debate about both of these much discussed reforms in Mexico is troubling. (I want to thank Patrick Corcoran at Gancho for providing a number of links used here.)

The RNC wants to be allowed to suppress voters (a.ka. stating the obvious)

From Project Vote's Voting Matters Blog:

On the eve of the Presidential election, facing an historic defeat, the Republican National Committee quietly filed a motion to dissolve an existing consent decree in which they'd agreed not to engage in voter caging or other types of voter intimidation. Since 1982, the RNC has been restricted from conducting so-called "ballot-security" measures that have historically been used to deter thousands of Americans - largely low-income and minority citizens - from voting. Now, the RNC wants to be free of these restrictions. A hearing on the RNC motion is scheduled for next Tuesday in the U.S. District Court for New Jersey....

Check out the link, its a pretty fascinating read.

Thanks to Rick Hasen's Election Law Blog for pointing me to this story.

Discussing Latin America (II): Where is Nicaragua Headed? Part Two

Several days ago, Mr. Trend pointed out a couple contrasting interpretations about Nicaragua's economic future from Foreign Policy and World Focus. I won't rehash what was already said in the previous post, but I do want to make a few observations. 

First, the Foreign Policy article really has nothing useful to say about Nicaragua's future. The comparison with Iceland, as pointed out in the comments in the previous post, is absurd. Iceland is an industrialized nation with major connections to the global economy. The financial collapse in Iceland could not even possibly take place in Nicaragua largely because of the nature of Nicaraguan economy. Nicaragua is already incredibly poor, right up there with Haiti as one of the poorest countries in the western hemisphere. The connection between the health of financial institutions and the well being of most Nicaraguans is fairly tenuous; any collapse of financial institutions in Nicaragua would have an impact on the daily lives of people, but since they are so close to subsistence levels as of now, it is hard for me to imagine how a collapse would in any way be comparable to what happened in Iceland. 

Moreover, the reasons why Nicaragua's economy might be on the verge of collapse as stated by Foreign Policy make little sense. They first suggest a drop in remittances from the U.S. will affect the Nicaraguan economy. While the role of remittances from the US to Nicaragua does matter to a certain extent, it is much smaller than in other countries such as Mexico and El Salvador. There just aren't that many Nicaraguans living in the U.S. compared to other Latin American populations. Nicaragua also depends a lot on remittances from Costa Rica, so the extent to which the U.S. financial crisis affects the Costa Rican economy will matter just as much for the health of Nicaragua's. Maybe Mr. Trend has some insight on how Costa Rica is doing economically? I really have no idea. 

Foreign Policy also points out the fall in coffee prices as a sign of pending financial ruin in Nicaragua. Please. First off, Nicaragua exports other agricultural goods, as well as textiles and apparel. The economy is not completely dependent on coffee prices. Second, the fluctuations in coffee prices is basically a constant throughout Central American history. While they have an impact, governments and economies do not rise and fall with the price of coffee.

The World Focus piece seems a little over optimistic and sugar coats a lot, but I do tend to agree Nicaragua has the potential to grow economically. However, the key word here is 'potential.' What the article does not mention (because it primarily focuses on just Managua) is that there is a major lack of basic infrastructure in Nicaragua. This lack of infrastructure, such as paved roads, sewage, water, electricity, and development of  communications networks, is a major stumbling block for encouraging capitalist investment in the country. Tourist infrastructure is still fairly basic, and nonexistent in many parts of the country. As a result, tourism is likely to remain limited to those who enjoy a more rustic experience. 

The other major stumbling block is the political situation, and I don't mean just Ortega. Political and legal institutions are generally not respected, and have been in a constant state of flux since 1990. From an foreign investment standpoint, the fluidity of the rule of law may not be particularly attractive since the political situation is unpredictable. 

I want to make clear that my particular criticisms of the Nicaraguan economy and the state, are not a result of anything unique to Daniel Ortega, or the Sandinistas more generally. These are historical problems that I would argue go back to the beginning of the 20th century, and maybe before. Generally, I think recent governments, including Ortega's, have been making attempts to promote economic growth, but the problems they face are so huge that its hard to be optimistic about anything that happens in the short term.

Now everyone can enjoy Death.

I haven't been this excited about a punk rock record in a long time. Death were a short lived band from the mid-70s Detroit scene that managed to record 7 tracks in 1975 and self-released a single in 1976 before disappearing. Drag City Records is releasing there entire recorded output in a couple weeks. Their sound is heavily influenced by the MC5 and The Stooges, but unlike those bands, they also have a lot in common with the sound of UK punk bands from 1976 and 1977. I pre-ordered a copy of the LP and it came in the mail today. I've already listened to this 6 or 7 times, it is great stuff that I highly recommend. Listen here, more info and background here and here. 

The best Super Bowl ad none of us saw.

Well, unless you watched the Super Bowl in Mexico. Two of Mexico's major television stations, Televisa and TV Azteca decided to run a block of political ads throughout the Super Bowl, actually interrupting the game instead of during the commercial breaks. These block ads included a promo spot for the Federal Electoral Institute (IFE), and a group of spots for a number of Mexico's political parties. This also happened in a number of soccer games during the weekend and other types of programming. Needless to say, it seems people are pissed, and the IFE is as well. The IFE says it is going to investigate why the spots were run during programming rather than during commercial breaks.

What seems to be going on is the TV stations are angry with the IFE and the parties for the major 2007 electoral reform that prohibits parties from being able to independently purchase air time, a major source of revenue for the stations. So, they decide to take it out on their viewers and try to make them even more disgusted with the political parties. Not sure how well that strategy will work, the parties are already held in pretty low regard, and if further investigation shows the stations were being vindictive, they may face some (although likely minor) consequences.

I tried finding clips of the ads themselves this morning, but couldn't find any links. If anyone knows where I can see them, post in the comments. (Links in Spanish, sorry).

The "state" of Mexico's State

If anyone has been following headline's in the U.S. press about Mexico in the last month or two, you might have noticed a lot of alarmist and sensationalist garbage being thrown around suggesting that Mexico is coming close to collapse, is a "failed state" or a "narco state." Fox news has been spreading this message, along with a number of political commentators on the Sunday morning talk shows, and even Rolling Stone.

The violence in Mexico is worrying, and cause for concern, but the rhetoric seems to lead the uninformed to think Mexico is more like Somalia. It is definitely not.

Political Scientist Stephen Haber has an interesting column in the Wall Street Journal where he puts the violence in Mexico into perspective (in an article about the general state of Latin America). He writes:

The Mexican state is weak compared to the U.S., but incredibly strong when compared to places in Central Asia or Africa that are usually called failing states. There are no foreign troops on Mexican soil. There is no martial law. Garbage is picked up, streets are swept and children go to school. Middle-class couples take weekend getaways, and drive there on highways as good as those in the United States. After falling for a decade, Mexico's homicide rate increased in 2008, because the Calderón government courageously decided to take on the drug traffickers. If it keeps rising, it may soon be as high as that of...Louisiana.

I do have a lot of quibbles with what Haber writes, about Latin America in general, and in this particular paragraph about Mexico. With around 6,000 murders related to drugs last year in Mexico, comparing the rate of homicide from an entire country to the state of Louisiana does mask some of the horror going on in Mexico. Nearly half of the drug-related murders took place in the state of Chihuahua, a northern state in Mexico with a slightly smaller population than Louisiana. But the general gist of Haber's article is correct, even with allegations of corruption at all levels of government and in the police and military, and the gruesome ways in which people are being are being killed in Mexico, the state still works, and the overwhelming majority of people can still go about their daily lives as they did before Calderón came to office. 

For those that are interested, Patrick Corcoran over at the blog Gancho has been regularly addressing some of the more ridiculous claims about Mexico's supposed decent into anarchy.

The best monument in the world

A giant shoe built by Iraqi orphans to commemorate the journalist who threw his shoe at Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister al-Maliki. If they let this journalist out of jail, maybe he can run for office?

Obama's inauguration, an inspiring pain in the ass

"Well, at least getting there. Having a standing room ticket to the inauguration didn't seem to help a whole lot of people get into the national mall. I arrived with my purple ticket at the closest open metro station, Chinatown, around 9am. The station was so full people didn't have enough room to get off the train. The escalator I was on got too full and broke. Two blocks form the purple ticket holders' gate a mass of people was inexplicably stuck at the intersection of First and D. Two concrete barriers that you could easily walk around were keeping thousands of people in a very tight space. I stood there like a sardine for almost two hours...some people passed out, others vomited. Somehow they managed to drive an ambulance through the middle of the crowd, squeezing us even tighter. Jesse Jackson and his entourage squeezed through...I only got a picture of the back of his head. I have it on good authority that Al Sharpton also made an appearance in our mob just before I got there.

Just as inexplicable as the mob itself, I got pushed five feet and everything opened up. I was greeted by another mob, apparently waiting in line for the purple gate. Funny thing is, the gate was locked and wasn't letting anyone in. People were pissed. There were people who had been waiting there since 5 and 6 in the morning, and they were standing in the same place I was. They randomly chanted "let us in!" and, for some reason, "Purple! Purple!" Finally, at 11:30, just as the ceremony was beginning, an entrance about 100 feet from where everyone was lined up opened and something like three thousand people tried to squeeze through an entrance about ten feet wide, awesome. Apparently I was lucky. Word is, a whole lot of purple ticket holders never got in. Some people claimed they were turned away, but my hunch is that that's bullshit. Mostly, people were sick of being sardines and once 11 o'clock rolled around, people gave up and tried to find a nearby bar to watch the inauguration on tv. But, then again, Facebook tells another story. The day after, already a dozen groups popped up, some of my favorites: "Purple Inaugural Ticket Holders for Truth;" "Purple Ticket Holder Conspiracy Group;" and "Purple Ticket Holders: No We Didn't."

Security was mostly a joke, but at least there were metal detectors. I'm told some Silver ticket holders rushed their gate and hopped over the fence without being screened. I ran from the security check to the ticketed area and caught the tail end of Biden's swearing-in. I had a good ticket on the Capitol lawn inside the wall, but it was impossible to see anything. The two jumbotron screens were strategically placed behind trees and Obama looked like an ant. None of that really mattered though, being there was cool enough. There was a lot of nodding heads and "yeah, that's right!" during Obama's speech. People seemed to really like it when he talked about not compromising ideals for expediency's sake, or something along those lines (ouch, Mr. Bush). And while I recognize that my continued belief that Obama is going to save the world is naïve, being hunkered down next to a whole bunch of Kenyans somehow convinced me that he could pull it off (something to do with international support, I dunno).

The sound for Obama's inaugural address was good, but everything else was impossible to hear from where I was standing. I ended up watching it all over again on C-Span (that is, YouTube) after I got home. Funny thing, on tv, when Obama thanked Bush for his service to the country, all you hear is applause. On the Capitol lawn, and certainly what Bush heard, was more a mix of applause and booing...mostly booing. Come on now, really? I felt it cheapened the moment.

With all that said, it was awesome. More or less having come to political maturity during the Bush administration, it was really exhilarating to be around so many people that were actually excited about a president. My friend Jason, also a purple ticket holder, cried at the swearing-in. My friend Sandy, wandering around the Washington Monument, partook in random stranger hugging (apparently, booing Bush was louder back there too). And 7th St from Chinatown to the mall practically turned into an independent economy of poorly made Obama kitsch almost over night, and people are actually buying this crap! Fantastic, I say." - Abel Kerevel.

Since I managed to score a few tickets to the inauguration for my brother, I asked him to write up a little piece on his experience for the blog. I'll be in DC on Friday, maybe I'll be able to score some discounted Obama merch?

Same Day Voter Registration in New Mexico?

I hope so, anyways. Back in November it came out that New Mexico was considering Election Day Voter Registration (you can read some of that old news here and here). Well, its on the table in the New Mexico State Legislature, which begins its 2009 session on January 20th. You can read the draft of the bill here. The way the bill is currently written, any person who is allowed to vote and not registered at the time early voting begins or on Election Day can show up at their precinct with the proper voter identification requirements and register to vote. 

There is a somewhat minor problem with the bill as it is (depending on how you look at it). It requires that a unregistered voter present themselves at the precinct in which they are supposed to vote had they been registered before the standard deadline. The way elections are currently run in New Mexico makes this somewhat difficult. The poll worker in charge of registering the voter would have to call the County Clerk's office and have them figure out if the voter was in the correct precinct. This might be ok if there aren't that many people who are registering when they vote, and it assumes that the poll worker could actually reach the Clerk's office. Polling locations on Election Day are currently not equipped with computers that would allow poll workers to verify where the person is supposed to vote (not to mention the terrible lack of internet access in many rural areas of New Mexico). And, many Clerk's offices do not have enough phone lines dedicated to dealing with Election Day issues. These are minor problems as long as someone has the foresight to deal with these technological issues before the next election. I'm not that worried about the bigger counties, but the smaller, primarily rural counties are likely have more problems. 

I hope this passes. Updating polling places in New Mexico with computers with internet access would really help reduce a number of other issues like registered voters showing up at the wrong location without being able to find their correct precinct, and helping reduce the number of provisional voters, which tend to bog down the final tallying of votes. 

Ron Asheton, RIP

The original guitar player for the Stooges passed away last night. I just found this out, a bummer, but now maybe is the time to check out that new Stooges album I never got around to hearing.

Oregon's mileage tax proposal

A few days ago I was intrigued by a couple news stories about Oregon's proposal to tax mileage instead of gas. The basic premise is, instead of paying a flat per gallon tax, drivers would pay a per mile tax every time they fill up at the pump. I personally think the idea is brilliant. Both the AP and the LA Times wrote articles, although I really can't figure out why the story popped up now, maybe it was a slow news day, or its possible Oregon may be discussing it this year in their state legislature. 

Anyway, I found the stories light on concrete information (what a surprise) so I tracked down the lengthy report from the Oregon Department of Transportation that came out in 2007. In it, they discuss the results of a year long pilot study they conducted with 285 drivers in the Portland area. Monitoring boxes were installed in the cars to keep track of the mileage, and a couple participating gas stations had special equipment installed to calculate the tax. You can read all about the mechanics of the study in the report or in the above cited articles.

I want to point out a couple issues raised in the stories on why a mileage tax might be a bad idea. First, there are supposedly complaints about privacy. Can't the state then track all of our movements? I really think this is a non-issue raised by the usual suspects you would expect to be scared of the mythical big brother. Why? The way the program is designed in Oregon's pilot study, and what they propose to policymakers, is that the device keeps track of mileage within a designated zone (i.e. a large geographic area). The specific movements within that zone are never recorded in the car, or in a centralized database. Sure, you could figure out some general area a person might be in, but that isn't all that different than using a cell phone or a credit card, which can be traced. Furthermore, in the study of the people who participated in the program, the overwhelming majority were satisfied with the level of privacy associated with the mileage tax. In a survey of participants before the study (but after they had explained to them how the program worked), 82% had no concern with privacy issues associated with the equipment. Only 3% had great concern. In a survey of participants after the study was over, 69% were satisfied with the level of privacy, 13% were neutral, and 2% were dissatisfied. 

Second, supposedly instituting a mileage tax will reduce the incentive to buy fuel efficient vehicles. What? This makes absolutely no sense. The incentive to buy fuel efficient vehicles is to buy less GAS, not pay a few pennies less in gas taxes. 

I really like this proposal, and while I'm not that optimistic it will get off the ground across the country, I like it because it encourages people to actually drive less. My own personal opinion in the whole debate about alternative energy and fuel efficient cars, is the best answer is to use LESS, not use the same amount but make it more environmentally friendly. In the Oregon study, they conducted an experiment, monitoring the driving patterns of people before and during the study, and found that all participants who were being charged the gas tax were driving less. The differences were somewhat small, but I think the potential is there to make a significant environmental impact if a policy like this is adopted. And, the incentive is small. People that need to drive a lot are not going to have some new heavy financial burden placed upon them. It seems that just knowing that if we drive less, we can save a buck here or there, makes people think a little more about their transportation habits.

The New Light Rail in Phoenix

Phoenix just opened a new light rail system last Saturday that has been in the planning stages for years. They starting charging for rides today, but my wife and I had the pleasure of riding it for free on Monday and Tuesday during the opening celebration of this new addition to public transport in Phoenix. It was completely packed the entire time we were on the train, and it was nice to see so many people interested in checking out the new system. Hopefully now that people have to pay to use the light rail, there is continued use of it as the city does plan on extending the current route. Since we have a lot of experience riding metros in other cities, it was interesting to see a large majority of people without experience learn on the spot how to handle themselves and try not to fall over while the train was moving. 

We don't know Phoenix very well, but on our last trip driving around the city was quite an ordeal. This last visit we were able to take the train to the majority of places we wanted to go. This new light rail seems to be a major improvement in the quality of life for the city, and I hope that the residents there continue to take advantage of it and support its future development. You can read more about it here, here, and here.

Is music piracy wrong?

I thought this might stir up some interesting debate on the heels of Erik's rant about iTunes.

Found here, reprinted in full:

In Defense of Piracy: Democratizing the Public Library

Music is primarily an art form, not just a product to be consumed. I mean this in two ways. First, the logic of music creation follows that of other art forms, literature, painting, sculpture, theatre, etc., not the logic of supply and demand. Music has always been and will always be created as a form of expression regardless of the economic circumstances surrounding its distribution.  Artists create because they have to create, not because it is profitable. Writers continued to write, painters continue to paint, musicians continue to play, not because they know they will receive a paycheck every two weeks, but because of something inside them that requires this form of expression. Second, the enjoyment of art should not require certain financial resources, much like public sculptures and murals, free access to public libraries, taking pictures of anything found or created that one considers art, etc. Art has been maintained in various ways, including certain styles of music (i.e. jazz, classical) not because it is profitable, but because it is considered something valuable, something that represents the beauty and the absurdity within us all.

Free access to museums and galleries (in many places), and free access to books through libraries has not destroyed other forms of art. Why has it come to the point where free access to music has been considered a crime? The absurdity of this crime becomes all the more incomprehensible when we view music as art, not as a capitalist product with a copyright. The fight to restrict music to those who can pay has a striking similarity to those who ban books, to authoritarian regimes who restrict internet access and censor cultural production. Is music revolutionary? Music can be powerful, but I’m not so idealistic to think the message of music will destroy the dominant forms of power. What are they afraid of?

For years, music has been available for free through public libraries, although the selection was somewhat restricted due to budgetary and other constraints. Libraries have not killed music, artists still create, labels still produce music, people still attend concerts. Home taping was considered the death knell of music in the 80s. But surprise! music is still around. 

Think about what it is that libraries provide to our societies. I can go to the library, check out a book, read it, return it, and never have to pay a penny. I can do the same with a compact disc, a vinyl record or cassette (for those libraries that still have them), or a DVD or VHS. Nothing stops a person from copying any of these works, yet a campaign to shut down libraries to protect copyright laws would be unthinkable as many have come to depend on library access or consider it a right.

While through libraries and other public institutions, many people have access to the greatest literary and artistic creations, for some reason, it is considered inappropriate to have access to the greatest (and no so great) musical creations. To become educated about literature, about painting, and about other arts, requires very little in terms of financial resources. However, to become educated about an equally valid art form, music, regardless if you think that applies to Mozart, John Coltrane, Morbid Angel, Led Zeppelin, Aretha Franklin, Kanye West, Albert King or the Dead Kennedys, is extremely difficult without a significant financial investment. Music is a record of the human experience, to protect this form of art for the benefit of all, for enjoyment, for enlightenment, for educational purposes, does not require making everyone pay for it, it requires making it available to as many people as possible.

File sharing, music blogs, mp3s, home taping, burning CDs, these are all ways of democratizing art, of creating a democratic library of music that ensures everyone can enjoy a popular form of art.  Lovers and appreciators of music have taken it upon themselves through the internet to revive lost musical creations to educate the young and the old about all they missed because of the absurd idea that only one art form can be enjoyed if you pay for it (while others can be free). The nameless and anonymous individuals who provide music for free are creating a historical record of music that could easily be lost or only enjoyed by a very few. Libraries and other public institutions have failed in this regard, appreciators of music as art have come forward to not only protect, but revive and share what should be available to everyone. 

Discussing Latin America, Part 2 - The role of iconic figures in political party conflict

Mr. Trend raises an important question in  Part 1 of this post related to understanding political parties in a number of Latin American countries.

Among the political parties mentioned in the previous post, I think there are some important distinctions that need to be made in how the symbolic figure becomes adopted. Among the Sandinistas in Nicaragua and the FMLN in El Salvador, both parties were attempting to recover a national history that was somewhat lost or hidden through the iconic use of Nicaragua's Augusto César Sandino and El Salvador's Farabundo Martí. What sets these two parties apart from others is that the importance of these two individuals as national figures is still hotly contested in both countries (at least I think this is the case in El Salvador). Whether or not Sandino was an anti-imperialist hero, or a criminal lunatic is still very much a debate in Nicaragua. 

Both the Sandinistas and the FMLN were in some sense attempting to reinterpret the historical narrative in their respective countries, which is much different than say the use of José Martí in Cuba or Bolívar in Venezuela. My sense of the use of José Martí and Bolívar is that these two figures were, and remain so, national icons used to give nationalist legitimacy to a movement. There was not a conflict over the importance of these two figures to each country's national history as exists in Nicaragua and El Salvador. 

Mr. Trend suggests that Bolívar does not belong in this category, but I think it is an interesting case that does belong here. There has been an attempt by Hugo Chávez to reinterpret Bolívar as an anti-imperialist hero, and sort of whitewash his more unsavory characteristics. What is going on there is somewhat similar to how the Sandinistas chose to present Sandino during the Nicaraguan Revolution. Sandino's thought was collected in ways by Sandinista leaders to present a very narrow portrait of the man that would serve the Revolution's interests. Chávez is doing something similar by issuing collections of Bolívar's thought that highlight his thought in ways that serve the Bolivarian Revolution, but ignore some of the more anti-democratic and aristocratic tendencies of Bolívar. However, this use of Bolívar is not quite comparable to Nicaragua and El Salvador, because both sides in Venezuela accept Bolívar as a national icon. Anti-chavistas oppose Chávez' use of Bolívar for political ends, but not his place in Venezuelan history. 

As for Perón, I'm not sure I would lump his Justicialist Party (PJ) in with the other cases, since it was Perón himself who formed the party. There is a fairly decent sized literature in political science on political parties formed around charismatic individuals (which maybe I will delve into in future posts?) that sets these types of parties apart from others on a number of organizational and ideological dimensions. I am somewhat familiar with the effect his leadership had on the future of the party, but I'm not familiar with the current status of Peron as a myth or national icon in Argentina. Does it cross party lines, or is he more seen as a symbol to supporters of the PJ rather than to all Argentines?

Thinking about parties formed around charismatic individuals, my sense is that we would be better off comparing Perón to Chávez, and possibly to Fidel Castro in Cuba and Cuauhtémoc Cárdenas and his foundation of the Party of the Democratic Revolution (PRD) in Mexico. This comparison would be somewhat difficult because we haven't been able to observe a post-Chávez party or a post-Castro party, but the consequences for these political parties is likely to be distinct due to their foundational characteristics in ways unlike the FMLN or the Sandinistas.

In short, what I am suggesting from all of this in response to Mr. Trend's question is some form of conceptual typology to look at the consequences particular individuals have on political parties. I think we could look at these parties along three lines:

1) The use of contested national symbols (i.e. Farabundo Martí and Sandino)

2)The use of accepted national symbols (i.e. José Martí and Bolívar)

3)Parties formed around charismatic individuals (i.e. Perón, Chávez, Castro)

This typology allows for one party to fit in multiple categories, but I think it makes more sense to look at these parties in this way, rather than in a sort of holistic comparison of political parties across countries. 

Nicaragua's 2008 Municipal Elections

On November 9th, Nicaragua held municipal elections in 146 municipalities. It seems these elections have somewhat gone under the radar, but there is a growing conflict over the results of those elections. The Sandinistas have claimed to have won in roughly 100 of those municipalities, although coming up with an exact number is still difficult at this point because official results have still not been released. On Tuesday, there were violent clashes between Sandinistas (FSLN) and Constitutionalist Liberal Party (PLC) supporters in Managua, and last week there were a number of other conflicts between Sandinistas and Liberals in Managua, León, and Matagalpa.

The Washington Post on Sunday printed an editorial claiming that Daniel Ortega, the current President, is attempting to consolidate a dictatorship, although a number of the claims in this article have been refuted by the Nicaragua Network, which I reprint here (this was sent out on their email list, and is unfortunately not on their website):

There were international observers at the Nov. 9 municipal elections from respected groups of officials from Latin American electoral councils. The three teams of high level experts reported seeing no instances of fraud.

The opposition should pursue its claims of fraud through the available legal mechanisms rather than exclusively in the media.

The integrity of Nicaragua's elections is insured, just as it is in the United States, by the presence in each polling place of each party's poll watchers who also witness the vote count.

US favored Managua mayoral candidate, Eduardo Montealegre, was not favored to win. An independent and respected polling company-CID Gallop-put him five points behind the FSLN candidate, former world boxing champ, Alexis Argüello, a week before the election.

While, sadly, there has been post-election violence on all sides, the right wing Constitutional Liberal Party (PLC) initiated it, injuring several people including a Sandinista radio reporter who was stabbed and whose car was torched.

The Supreme Electoral Council is an independent branch of government. It has three Sandinista representatives, three PLC representatives, and the chairman is affiliated with no political party. It certified the results of the 2008 municipal elections.

Montealegre presented discrepancies in only two precincts out of 2,200 in Managua to support his claim of fraud.

An official recount in Managua confirmed the victory of the FSLN candidate Arguello.

It is unfortunate that this type of conflict is happening in Nicaragua, but not all that surprising as several months ago I suggested that an FSLN win would likely lead to more political unrest. It is important to place these elections in a context, which much of the reporting linked to above does not do. A lot of the problems that have come to a head in these elections are actually related to reforms from 1999-2000, commonly referred to as the PLC-FSLN Pact that was orchestrated by Ortega and former PLC President Arnoldo Alemán. As part of these reforms, the electoral law was changed to make it more difficult for smaller political parties to participate, although it was not all that restrictive compared to other Latin American electoral laws and has not really served until recently as a mechanism to block the participation of minor parties. Back in May, Nicaragua's Supreme Electoral Council banned the Sandinista Renovation Movement and the Conservative Party from participating in the municipal elections due to some violations of the electoral law. While both of these parties have very little electoral support in Nicaragua, it was a bad public relations move for Nicaragua's government, and it seems the requirements for political party participation were not evenly applied, as the minor Alternative for Change Party (AC) was allowed to participate in the municipal elections. Another major component of the 1999-2000 reforms was the partisan division of the Supreme Electoral Council (CSE) which divided the seats between FSLN and PLC supporters, and has since lost a lot of legitimacy as an institution in charge of running elections. Finally, as part of the reforms, the percentage of the vote needed to win the presidency was lowered, and was really the crucial factor in explaining why Daniel Ortega was able to win the 2006 Presidential elections with only 38% of the vote.

However, there are two factors that are not really talked about much in all the vitriol spewed out against Ortega and the Sandinistas. First, the Liberals were just as much supporters of the Pact's reforms, as the Sandinistas have never had a legislative majority, and the PLC controlled the Presidency when these reforms passed. This does not make the reforms more legitimate, but the PLC was a critical player in designing the current institutions governing elections. Second, the Right, and principally the Liberals, have been divided since before 2006. In the 2006 elections, Ortega ran against two Liberal candidates who together won over 50% of the vote. Had the Liberals been able to coordinate better, Ortega would not be president. The same can be said for the most recent municipal elections. On the Left there was the FSLN, but on the Right there were four parties, the PLC, the Nicaraguan Liberal Alliance, the Nicaraguan Resistance Party, and AC. Notwithstanding that these Right parties have very little to offer most poor Nicaraguans besides anti-Sandinista rhetoric and dubious claims about good government, they would be more successful at winning elections if they ran as a single coalition.

While the final results of the municipal elections have not been released, the CSE has released provisional results for 100 municipalities. I have analyzed these and compared them to previous results from 2004, when the FSLN won 87 out of 152 municipalities. Of these 100 municipalities, there is a slight increase in the number won by the FSLN, but not much. 77 out of the 100 municipalities for which I have results were won by the FSLN, but if I add together the votes on the Right, the FSLN would have lost 10 of these municipalities had the Right parties been able to coordinate. Out of the 100 municipalities, 15 changed hands from the PLC to the FSLN, of which 5 could have remained in PLC hands had the Right only ran one candidate. The FSLN lost control in only 2 municipalities.

When final results are finally released, I will try to write some more about this election. While there are a lot of claims right now that fraud occurred, I have not seen anything that suggests systematic fraud at the level of counting votes. There are plenty of stories about isolated incidents of polling place irregularities, and some ballots being dumped in León, but these incidents by themselves do not amount to a systematic attempt to commit fraud. However, the claims against the legitimacy of some of Nicaragua's electoral institutions, of which I tend to agree, date back before Ortega's presidency and the Liberals deserve as much blame for the reforms as the Sandinistas.

Football in Mexico!

There is an excellent article over at the LA Times from a couple days ago about the rising popularity of American football in Mexico. I have not yet personally seen a Mexican football game, but it is definitely on my list of things I need to do in Mexico. One of my greatest experiences watching a football game was in Mexico about two years ago. There is a movie theatre just outside of Mexico City that shows Monday night football games, so I went to see the Bengals and Colts play. I was not expecting much, who could possibly like those teams in Mexico City? My perception was that most Mexicans only like the Cowboys or the Raiders, but I was completely wrong. The theatre was packed, there was a huge line to get in, and most people in line had Bengals or Colts jerseys on. Once we got into the theatre, it was like a giant party, with theatre staff walking around serving beer, nachos, and other kinds of junk food. Not only was it great to get beer in a theatre, but also to watch a game with several hundred other people having a great time. I would definitely take this over going to some lame sports bar to watch a game in the U.S.

A more interesting map of the 2008 Presidential Results

 Here is a rescaled map of the U.S. based on population proportions. You can find more maps that better represent the results here, as well as an explanation on how this was made.

Non-election news?

Mexico's Minister of the Interior was killed in a plane crash yesterday, along with a number of other people. The plane crashed right into traffic in Mexico City, crazy to think about. This is a big deal, the Ministerial position is sort of second only to the president in influence, and the holder of this position definitely has a lot of power. While Mouriño was a pretty controversial figure in Mexico, this is likely a huge blow to the Calderón government.

Some quick notes on Election Day Observations in Southern New Mexico

I arrived at my first polling place at 6am in Las Cruces to watch the opening. Out of 4 poll workers, 1 had had training, and the other 3 had only been called to work the day before. Needless to say, it was a little chaotic, and the polls opened about 15 minutes late. The voters were a little hostile and yelling at the workers, but they finally were able to vote. When a person gets a ballot, they also get a voter permit card that has the ballot number and the voters number on the list of registered voters. At this particular precinct, the poll workers were asking the voter's party identification to write on the permit card as they inserted the ballot into the voting machine. It was obvious the voters were a little taken aback by this, but didn't really question it. It is definitely not allowed to ask a voter's partisanship like this. Very weird.

Most of the precincts I visited throughout Doña Ana County and Las Cruces were very slow, without very much activity. Its not all that surprising because early voting turnout was so high here, but I'll have to see if that was the trend across the county and the state. I've had very little communication with others throughout the day.

The most interesting place I went to was Sunland Park, which is a heavily Latino area next to El Paso. The first precinct we attended had a table of Obama campaign people in front of the polling place handing out sample ballots to voters with all the Democratic candidates filled in so the voters could use the sample ballot as a guide. We saw a number of voters actually use these ballots in the pooling booth. There was also another team of Obama campaign people helping voters find their precinct if they were at the wrong precinct. Unfortunately, in the heavily Spanish-speaking areas we attended, there were a high number of provisional ballots being filled out. I'm not really sure what was going on, but there seemed to be a lot more confusion going on in these precincts in finding the correct voting location. The Republican challenger inside the Sunland Park precinct said he was waiting for a buss load of people to come into the site, so he could go out and start taking down the license plates as a form of intimidation. He said it works, because a lot of voters in the area are scared of people recording information about them. 

In the second precinct in Sunland Park, there was not much going on, but as we were leaving, My colleague and I were harassed by a supposed chairwoman of the New Mexico Democratic Party. She said she had received reports of two men going around precincts asking voters to sign forms and talking to voters, something we were definitely not doing. It was a fairly long ordeal, and I understand her concern. It does demonstrate the level of tension in this community, and two white guys walking around with forms probably looked suspicious to somebody. We had heard stories about the last election from some Obama people of campaigners being arrested by the police, even though they were far enough away from the precinct. 

I'm tired and need a drink.

Counting Absentee Ballots in Albuquerque

Here are some images of the counting of Absentee ballots in Albuquerque from this afternoon. There aren't very good because I was not allowed to take pictures in the actual area where people were working. In the second picture, you can see a bunch of people behind a fence. That is where the four machines that count the absentee ballots are located. The county hopes to finished counting all the ballots tonight, and as you can see, this is a massive operation. 

I've heard from several friends that absentee ballots aren't counted unless the race is close, or that they don't count them until the election is over. I'm not sure these somewhat crummy pictures are convincing evidence that these rumors are false, but they are.