Talk:2012 Mexican general election

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:00, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Mexican presidential election, 2012 → Mexican general election, 2012 – This article should be renamed to match the naming convention used for previous Mexican elections, such as Mexican general election, 2006 and Mexican general election, 2000 David Baron (talk) 17:08, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

clean up[edit]

I guess there were translation problems. I changed "Declared candidate" to "nominee" as the three candidates are now set. Ericl (talk) 20:10, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request move for opinion polls.[edit]

I suggest, that the section of opinion polls, should be eliminated, because I think it violates the impartiality of the article, as the election hasn't been held. Fantom261092 (talk) 14:53, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Letting readers know what polls say doesn't violate impartiality. Any good wikipedia article for an election that hasn't happened yet should have as many recent opinion polls as possible. Ratemonth (talk) 20:31, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Other surveys, media monitoring and independent polls[edit]

All "Other surveys, media monitoring and independent polls" should be removed from this page. These surveys lack a proper sample definition and other methodology details that are crucial in public opinion research. There's no way to know if these surveys are statistically valid or even significant. In no other election, in Wikipedia or elsewhere, are "web polls" and "public place" surveys given this prominence. Why now? Why here? -Previous comment by unknown user

Agree. I have removed these because not only are they not scientific and, overall, useless.... but all other election articles on the English wikipedia only have scientific opinion polls listed. These should not be further included. -AAIN 04 Jun 2012


TOTALLY DISAGREE! IN MEXICO THE ELECTION AUTHORITY DOES NOT ISSUE "OFFICIAL" POLLS. The only official one is the preliminary tally on the day of the vote. You are totally wrong. Some of the surveys and independent polls are carried by academic institutions such as the University of Guadalajara (urna abierta), National Autonomous University of Mexico (simulated election), the Universidad Autonoma de Chapingo (encuesta independiente). The population samples of Urna abierta and Encuesta Independiente are perfectly designed, stratificated and the results scientifically processed. In most of the cases, commercial firms do not fulfill the guidelines of the election authority in Mexico: the Instituto Federal Electoral (IFE). A couple of days ago, one of the IFE Central Council memebers, Ms. Marván, informed that most commercial firms do not report at all the data-base of the poll to them. In an IFE inform shown by Ms. Marvan many of the templates to be filled with the details of the polls administered by the firms remain empty, with no answer or concrete information. IN MEXICO DO NO EXIST OFFICIAL POLLS. ALL THE POLLS ARE COMMERCIAL AND BOOKED BY PARTIES, JOURNALS, NEWSPAPERS or other media enterprises generally liked to one of the parties. Wikipedia should reflect in an objective and broad way the reality and not to cut it showing just those aspects agreeable for some of the editors. A new player has now an important influence in electoral processes: electronic media, social networks, Internet. Excluding indicators showing their activity limits the comprehensive approach to the topic of the article. As an ELECTRONIC Encyclopaedia, wikipedia must reflect the reality, even when it does not fit to standard models. In each case when the survey is administered via web-site it is shown in the table. It is just a different case that a face to face or telephone poll, but any of them have general and specific factors adding to certain level of statistical uncertainness.

The editions and comments by unidentified users should be ignored in wikipedia.org Leaving message and undertaking actions on the articles anonymously is completely ANTI-ETHICAL. --GabEuro (talk) 11:52, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]


No. Please review the election articles from other countries. First, make sure to read and understand what we are referring to. No one mentioned anything about "official polls"... yes you are right that the only official poll is on election day. We are referring to SCIENTIFIC polls. A poll on a web page where anyone can click to show their opinion is NOT a valid scientific polls. Scientific polls are ones that use a representative, statistically valid sample of the population to form an opinion. Social network polls and webpage polls do not do this because they do not capture the opinions of people who do NOT use social networks or view that specific media website. Local simulated election-style polls are not acceptable either because they do not scientifically capture the opinions throughout the entire nation of Mexico. If you cannot understand this point, then please do not edit election articles on here. This data will be removed again, and any further attempts to include it will result in a request to lock down the editing of this page. --Adarnold542 (talk) 21:02, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can I offer my opinion as a third party? Provided there is no dispute that these polls are depicted accurately, I don't see why a few of them shouldn't be included. If read correctly, they provide the information that voting trends are considerably different for general population polls and social media participants. There shouldn't be so many of them - I suggest removing the least notable ones - those with a very small sample size or conducted by a non-notable source. UNAM poll is very informative in my opinion; in contrast, "parents polling children in school" or "face to face poll" is just silly. The editor who submitted the content should perform this cleanup. But the title they were submitted under is totally misleading - it should say something like "Informal small-scale polls" and should definitely go in a subsection under the formal polls. Is this acceptable to you two? ʝunglejill 22:10, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the position of Juglefill is the most appropriate. As a specialist in modelling of dynamic systems, I must say that a poll IS NOT a forecasting instrument. It results shows the range of expected values for the measurable variables in a concrete population. There is nothing strange if the results differ between the predominant opinion of housewives who are interviewed home at working hours and that coming out from an online administered survey. Both results reflect the reality inside of a population and if measured and/or processed accurately, both are SCIENTIFICALLY (statistically) VALID. A forecast of the results of the election will require the modelling of a dynamic system of functions depicted by ODE. For that purposes diverse parameters would be employed including those derived from the results of polls and surveys. When the conditions and methods of an public opinion measurement (poll, survey, simulation...) are available then there is no space for doubt or mixing-up their nature. Perhaps, we should include in the article only those "independent" public opinion measurements administered at national level or by re-known academic institutions. Regarding the concerning of Adarnold542, the Election Authority in Mexico has stated that the majority of the polls carried out by commercial firms do not meet the established requirement (some of them do not even report the population data base: http://www.jornada.unam.mx/2012/06/03/politica/007n1pol ). Finally, unlike what Adarnold542 thinks, the results of online polls are included in several articles of wikipedia.com. It would be completely strange if an electronic encyclopaedia would automatically block information just because it was collected by electronic means. In this article, among others, the results coming from online polls are included: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B7%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BD%D1%82%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B5_%D0%B2%D1%8B%D0%B1%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%8B_%D0%B2_%D0%A0%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B8_%282012%29 . --GabEuro (talk) 13:16, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe before the removal of the independent polls that there was a sentence accompanying the table mentioning that the independent polls disagree consistently with the public opinions polls. I think that regardless of whether the independent polls are included or not, that that statement should be re-added. I also think that the statement should also point out that the major difference is that the vast majority of public opinion polls show more support for Nieto while the vast majority of independent polls show support for Obrador (of course, with a more objective wording). LlamaInTheSky (talk) 17:37, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The results are not yet official[edit]

Enrique Peña Nieto is still not the president-elect. the results of this election are not yet official. They may be official until July 4. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.161.234.85 (talk) 05:08, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Updating[edit]

I added an update message to the page, after seeing recent article feedback left by users who seem to be disappointed at a lack of current information. Not having followed this topic much myself, I'm not entirely sure how relevant that is; feel free to remove it / work on that / whatever.  dalahäst (let's talk!) 07:14, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Senate election[edit]

The article says that each state elects three Senators, two from the leading party and one from the second party, but the results table shows only one Senator elected by each state. What is correct? Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 01:06, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are a total of 128 senators, 96 elected by FPTP and 32 by proportional representation. (This information comes from Spanish Wikipedia.) On a similar note, is it possible to copy the Congress (lower house) PR results from Spanish Wikipedia into the English article? I tried to do so myself - but the FPTP numbers don't match up properly, so the total number of deputies would not add up to 500... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.172.17.167 (talk) 02:18, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV problems – not again, please[edit]

Hey guys. I was reading the election controversies and it seems to lack some neutrality. I feel that the article is leaning towards the idea that alleged vote-buyings and laundering accusations are true. I understand it's a controversial subject and it may be impossible to find a balance, but let's start by including what the PRI said in its defense, the "evidences" they have presented, or at least by not managing the allegations as completely truthful.

Sorry if I appear to be pissed off. That's not the case. I'm just sadden that Wikipedia is being used for the wrong reasons: promoting people's political agenda. Thank you for your time. ComputerJA (talk) 06:19, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Mexican general election, 2012. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:17, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Mexican general election, 2012. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:07, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AMLO's home state[edit]

In most articles about elections, a candidate´s home state is the state where he/she has held important positions and not the state where he/she was born. For instance, Barack Obama was born in Hawaii, but the articles about the 2008 and 2012 elections state that his home state is Illinois. Given that AMLO was head of government of Mexico City, I think it would be appropriate to change his home state to Mexico City.

189.216.57.45 (talk) 17:07, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the context of mexican elections and electoral law, "Home State" is a term of art and has a specific meaning; it literally means the entity in which the candidate was born. So for Lopez Obrador, Tabasco is the appropriate place to designate as his "home state". (In order to run for Governor of a State, the individual must either establish residency or be born in the state; it is in that context that "home state", or 'estado natal', is used. In fact, when Lopez Obrador ran for head of government of Mexico City, his eligibility was challenged because his voting registration address was still listed as Tabasco six months prior to the election; moreover, at the time he was deciding whether to run for head of government of Mexico City, he was also contemplating a run for governor of Tabasco instead). Because of this, the comparison to the United States is not appropriate. Magidin (talk) 19:14, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Mexican general election, 2012. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:01, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mexican vs Mexico Elections in title[edit]

This really is elections of a nation not a nationality so would be better reflected by "Mexico" than "Mexican". It is said US Elections to designate of the United States rather than the "nationality" American. One is a "nationality such as in genetics and the other is of a nation as in physical location.2605:E000:9149:8300:9DC4:26:EC3F:9D35 (talk) 18:42, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NC-GAL, Mexican is correct; "Mexican" is an adjectival form for the country and not necessarily related to ethnicity. The US articles are misnamed due to concerns (unfounded IMO) that "American" is ambiguous. Number 57 12:13, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2012_Mexican_general_election&oldid=1196618461"