Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
What I can do, is look at what you wrote and see the sources you used and I can see what I find and share it with you and go from there. No need to recreate some thing you already covered and your knowledge of the Peruvian election.

Given the track record of BushCo fixing elections and only calling the validity of those election that didn't go their way, it does have to make you wonder a bit when they start throwing in those magic terms such as "free and fair" and "commitment to democracy."

US State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said June 5 that the United States congratulated the Peruvian people "on what would seem to be an open election free of violence."  McCormack said the United States had not heard any serious reports of electoral irregularities, "so this is an important moment for the Peruvian people."

McCormack said the United States will have an assessment of how Peru's election was conducted on "whether or not it was free and fair."  The spokesman said the results of the election were "up to the Peruvian people and we will respect whatever results the Peruvian people express through the ballot box."

The United States previously commended Peruvians on their commitment to democracy while withholding comment on the country's presidential candidates.

Iraqi Elections: "To Be Free and Fair..."

Corruption and hypocrisy ought not to be inevitable products of democracy, as they undoubtedly are today. - Gandhi
by XicanoPwr (chicanopwr at gmail.com) on Mon Jul 31st, 2006 at 01:03:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Upon checking my earlier diaries and sources, some correction: before the first round, it was right-wing candidate Lourdes Flores Nano who consistently beat Humala in a hypothetical runoff vote in opinion polls; but between the two rounds, García beat Humala in every poll. Interestingly, it was García who most vehemently protested poll results, and that for favoring Lourdes over him.

Note that in the first round, the two main candidates acceptable to Washington got 48.1% together vs. Humala's 30.6%, with two more ex-Fujimori right-wingers getting another 12.2%, which is beyond the margin of disputed ballots, and which makes the relative narrowness of Ollanta Humala's second-round defeat (given that voting is compulsory) the more impressive. (BTW, he himself conceded, while Lourdes Flores wouldn't concede her third place in the first round for almost a month.)

So all in all, I'd say: to give a different result, the scale of the needed vote tampering would be so large that it would have been more than enough for the US to propel Lourdes Flores not only into second but first place in the first round. On the other hand, the US could well have had a role in the campaign, and that while betting on multiple horses in the race.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Mon Jul 31st, 2006 at 03:43:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Top Diaries

Duplicity

by Frank Schnittger - Oct 20
46 comments

So what went wrong?

by Frank Schnittger - Oct 22
7 comments

Ulster says NO!

by Frank Schnittger - Oct 17
44 comments

Trump's Presidency Transfixed

by ARGeezer - Oct 17
20 comments

Spain is not a democracy

by IdiotSavant - Oct 14
10 comments

Occasional Series