Archive for April, 2006
Electoral Authorities: Challenges Ahead
Impact of Election Results on the Political Landscape
10:00 P.M.: ONPE Presidential Results at 80.68% – Valid Votes
Ollanta Humala 30.24%
Alan García 24.93%
Lourdes Flores 24.03%
Fellow bloggers coverage:
Los 67 mil
El adios político de Fernando Olivera
5:00 pm. ONPE Results at 75.64 Percent – Valid Votes
Ollanta Humala 29.65%
Alan Garcia 24.95%
Lourdes Flores 24.69%
Visit also:
Peru Election: The Day After
Final de fotografia, fotografia de final
Elecciones 2006: la mañana siguiente
Final de pelicula
3:00 pm: ONPE Presidential Results at 73.84% – Valid Votes
Left in limbo: Will Ollanta Humala take Peru the way of Venezuela?
Maxwell A. Cameron
The Guardian. Comment is free
April 10, 2006 12:21 PM
OAS Electoral Mission Preliminary Report
Local Analysis of the Election Results
Coverage of Alan García Activities on Election Day
Coverage of Yesterday’s Incident with Ollanta Humala
Coverage of Ollanta Humala Activities on Election Day
Coverage of Lourdes Flores Activities on Election Day
APOYO Exit Poll (100%) Congressional Results
Source: Expreso, 10 de abril del 2006
Reports of Isolated Shining Path Activities on Election Day
Coverage of the Electoral Process
La votación de los peruanos en el mundo
Source: La Primera, 10 de abril del 2006
Pintas subversivas alarmaron a los peruanos residentes en Madrid, España, que cumplieron con el proceso electoral.
ONPE Presidential results at 58.82% – Valid Votes
11:25 pm: Transparencia Quick Count
Transparencia announced this evening that the race for the second spot in the presidential election is too close to call. Speaking on behalf of the non-governmental organization, Pepi Patron said that the public will only know the final result when all the votes are counted and she appealed to all parties for calm and patience.
In the past, Transparencia’s results have been within 0.1 and 0.2 percent of the final result. Even with a very low margin of error, the results at 11 pm were too close for the NGO to declare who would be in the second round with Ollanta Humala.
For now, the results are:
Ollanta Humala: 29.85%
Lourdes Flores: 24.42%
Alan Garcia: 24.27%
However, this result does not provide certainty that Lourdes Flores will be in the second round. A different estimation technique, in which the various departments of Peru are weighed according to their electoral size, yields a district result:
Ollanta Humala: 30.32%
Lourdes Flores: 23.5%
Alan Garcia: 24.20%
Rafael Roncagliolo explained that Transparencia’s methodology involves inputing data until the outcome is stable. In this case, additional data will not significantly vary the result, and the margin of difference is still extremely small. In short, the quick count can only confirm two things: there will be a second round, and Ollanta Humala will be in the second round.
10:55 pm: ONPE Presidential Results at 45.16%
Ollanta Humala: 27.32%
Lourdes Flores: 26.45%
Alan Garcia: 26.05 %
Martha Chavez: 6.36%
Valentin Paniagua: 6.18%
Humberto Lay: 4.31%
Note: these percentages are not representative of the final result. Results at 80% will be more accurate.
For more details visit: http://www.elecciones2006.onpe.gob.pe/_resultados2006_/index.onpe
10:45 pm (hora de Lima) Flash conteo rapido al 100% de Apoyo
Ollanta Humala: 30.2.%
Lourdes Flores: 24.3%
Alan Garcia: 23.8%
Matha Chavez: 7.6%
Valentin Paniagua: 6.0%
Humberto Lay: 4.3%
Cuzco: Chasquis trasladan anforas de votacion
4:00 pm Exit Poll Results: Ollanta Humala in First Place
APOYO, DATUM, U de Lima, IDICE and PUCP Polls
OAS Electoral Mission Press Release
Ollanta Humala secuestrado por grupo hostil al momento de votar
Quick Update on the Morning of Election Day
Coverage of President Alejandro Toledo Speech
JNE: Second Round could Take Place on May 28th or June 4th
Transparencia: Resumen Informativo
For hourly updates on the election visit Resumen Informativo posted by Transparencia.
Personeros de los Partidos
El Comercio: Minuto-a-Minuto Coverage of the Election
El Comercio is posting information quite frequently at: MINUTO A MINUTO
Fernando Rospigliosi on the International Context of this Election
Interview with Cesar Hildebrandt
Interview with Ernesto Yepes
OAS: Conditions for Election Adequate
Who will win the election tomorrow?
Maxwell A. Cameron
April 8, 2006
It is highly unlikely that any of the top three candidates will win an outright majority in the presidential election tomorrow. Almost for certain there will be a second round. The last polls published had Ollanta Humala in the lead, and a close race for second between Lourdes Flores and Alan Garcia.
Over the course of the week, polls have circulated that cannot be published under Peru’s election laws. They can, however, be published by the foreign press. As a result, many of these results are circulating on the Internet. However, caution should be exercised in interpreting these polls. Some of the polls may not be trustworthy. Others may be accurate, but the situation is fluid. We will publish all the polls we have received after the period of publication embargo has ended. For now, here are a few thoughts on what might be factors shaping the race in its final stretch.
There is good reason to assume a high degree of volatility in the electorate. Voter preferences have been shifting from one day to the next, and there are many voters who will decide for whom to vote on the day of the election—tomorrow. The volatility of the electorate is in part a reflection of the lack of strong partisan attachments.
The number of undecided voters is probably greater than the margin between any two of the top three candidates. In other words, the undecided voters may well determine the outcome of this election. In this sense, the election is too close to call. It is truly an open race. No candidate can feel secure in the knowledge that he or she will place in the second round.
The last published APOYO poll placed Ollanta Humala in the lead by a fairly comfortable margin. Humala has the advantage of being a candidate who expresses frustration with the system. Voters who are frustrated with the system are probably impervious to allegations that Humala committed human rights abuses, and they may like his authoritarian aura.
One of Humala’s perceived virtues is that as a tough leader with a military background he might be able to crack down on corruption. Hence allegations that he has linkages to the Montesinos mafia could be damaging, even more than the human rights abuses. Similarly, the meeting between Torres Caro and Delgado Parker, and the trip by Salomon Lerner Ghitis to Chile apparently to look at arms purchases give an impression of double-dealing that could deflate Humala. In one campaign stop Humala was attacked by people who threw lettuce and said “out with the corrupt.” The hint of corruption in Humala’s camp could be damaging, and he sense that he has been placed on the defensive was reinforced by the tone of his speech in the closing of the campaign in Lima.
Humala’s supporters may feel besieged by the intense campaign attacks on their leader. This could drive them away from Humala, or simply result in greater reticence to publicly express support.
Humala has another problem. Much of his support will come from rural areas, and that is where it is hardest to pull and defend the vote. His support in the armed forces is hard to estimate, and the fact that some military and police personnel cannot vote could depress his support slightly. The armed forces represent less than 1 percent of the vote, however, and it is speculated by experts that they will probably not be decisive. But the Humala camp has to mobilize a lot of supporters throughout the country to defend the vote, and that represents an organizational challenge.
The APRA party has consistently held third place throughout this campaign, but to the extent that the margin between APRA and Unidad Nacional is narrow, one of the advantages of having an organized political party with lots of members is that you can pull the vote and defend the vote in polling booths right across the country. APRA has 120,000 supportes defending the vote. Moreover, APRA may have a “hidden vote,” because some people are loath to confess their support for a leader who is associated with a difficult period in Peruvian politics. In the past, this has meant APRA did slightly better in the end than the polls suggested it would.
There are two types of undecided voters: those who have no idea who to vote for (that is, their preferences are not formed) and those torn between two candidates (they have a sincere preference and a strategic preference). Some of the most conflicted voters in this campaign may be those who support smaller candidates. Many might like to vote for Flores in a second round, but think that if they don’t vote for her in the first round they may not get a chance in the second round (because she could be beat out by APRA which appears to have some momentum, especially after the closing rally).
Flores has been making this pitch in recent weeks, especially to Paniagua voters. There are a number of potential problems with this thinking. First, it can backfire. La Primera reports that Flores has apologized for comments made by VP candidate Woodman to the effect that a vote for Paniagua is a lost vote. Second, it is not clear that Paniagua voters would necessarily prefer Flores over Garcia, though there is some reason to expect they would. Third, it is possible that a vote for Flores or Garcia could be a wasted vote as well (either one of them might not make it into the second round), in which case the voter would be left with a third best candidate in the second round. Fourth, voters might just say, “to heck with strategic voting, the situation is too uncertain to know how to cast a strategic vote, I may as well vote sincerely.” This could mean that the smaller candidates are not abandoned. This makes the race potentially even tighter.
Lourdes Flores ended her campaign on an upbeat note. She will capitalize on the sense that of the three top candidates she is the most decent and trustworthy. In the face of a tough decision, she is the least disliked. That low level of negative rating could be her best card. Her weakness is organizational. She cannot match the APRA party organization and there seems to be feuding even among her alliances’ scrutineers.
This could be a tight race not only at the presidential level, but also at the congressional level. Peru has a preferential vote system in which candidates not only vote for a slate but have the option of choosing a particular candidate (identified by a number on a congressional list). If the voter does not specify the candidate by number, the vote is cast according to the ranking of candidates determined by the party or group. This means that congressional candidates are competing not only for votes for their slate, but also for votes for their own candidacy. This can generate competitiveness within congressional lists for shares of the preferential vote.
Adding to the complexity of all of this is the fact that there is a 4 percent threshold for legislative representation. If a party does not get enough votes to elect 5 candidates or 4 percent of the total vote it cannot hold a seat in congress. Some individual candidates may fare well, but if their list does not cross the threshold they will not take a seat on congress. All of this makes the use of exit polls a source of concern because they could generate false expectations.
To summarize, this is an extremely competitive election. For a number of weeks it seemed clear that there would be a second round; Humala would be in the second round; and there would be a tight race between Flores and Garcia. That is probably still the case, although there is enough volatility in the electorate to give encouragement to pretty well any preference.
At the end of the day, what may be decisive is whether the undecided, finally forced to choose, surge for Flores. Alternatively, some of the smaller candidates might be abandoned in favor of Flores. In that case, a runoff between Humala and Flores would be the result. If the margin between Flores and Garcia is narrow, the APRA party’s superior organization—its capacity to pull and defend the vote—could be decisive.
Interview with Alan Garcia in La Tercera (Chile)
Will Peru join South America’s tilt to the left?
Maxwell A. Cameron
The Globe and Mail
April 8, 2006
Financial Times Analysis of the Campaign
Rivals renew battle as Humala leads Peru field by Hal Weitzman in Lima and Editorial Comment: Humala’s warning
Alan Garcia & Lourdes Flores Close their Campaigns in Lima
Maxwell A. Cameron & Fabiola Bazo
Photos: M. Cameron & F. Bazo
April 6, 2006
Both Lourdes Flores and Alan Garcia closed their campaigns tonight, within a few city blocks of one another. Flores held her meeting in the Campo de Marte in the district of Jesus Maria, while Garcia closed his campaign in the same spot used by Ollanta Humala last night: in front of the Place of Justice in the city center.
Both meetings drew large crowds. It is easier to compare the size of the crowd that came for Garcia with the size of the crowd that assembled for Humala since they were held in exactly the same place. Our sense is they were comparable in size. Both were massive meetings. The APRA crowd was friendlier to outsiders than the Humala supporters. APRA draws support from a cross-section of the society, and it shows in the faces of those who gathered to hear Alan Garcia. There were many lumpen elements in the gathering of Humala’s supporters (a foreign journalist had his cell phone stolen and we almost lost a watch). The APRA crowd was remarkably disciplined and well behaved. They listened patiently and cheered enthusiastically while their leader spoke for a least two hours.
The contrast with Flores’ rally was striking. Flores’ meeting was colorful, up-beat, telegenic and full of razzmatazz. Every detail was carefully scripted. The security detail was organized and courteous, and the lights and colors were brilliant. The stage was positioned so that it looked out at a long street full of people; the media was placed behind the stage offering a view of Flores in a sea of supporters. The crowd seemed larger because it stretched way down the street, but it was not broad. One has the sense that Flores support is broader than it is deep, and the layout of the meeting seemed designed to convey depth of support at the expense of breadth.
Flores’ stage was like a cat-walk, allowing her to be close and surrounded by enthusiastic supporters. She spoke briefly and forcefully, and yet it is hard to remember exactly what she said. There were allusions to “Peru profundo” the “deep Peru” and promises to address the need for major changes. She spoke as a woman and of her commitment to the women of Peru. After the speech there was music, fireworks, confetti. Flores was joined on the stage by her congressional candidates. Flores’ supporters appeared to be considerably whiter and more well-to-do than the APRA crowd, and certainly more affluent than the Humala supporters.
The APRA rally appeared to be substantially larger, perhaps bigger than the Humala rally (which we estimated at 20,000).
Whereas Flores was brief and finished early, Garcia was speaking when we arrived and went on for close to two hours. And, whereas Flores spoke in general terms, clearly aimed at winning the widest possible support, Garcia’s speech was doctrinaire and policy-specific. One got the sense that he was aiming to mobilize core supporters and to make as many promises as possible to pull out specific groups of voters. He spoke of the plight of fishermen, students, teachers, members of the police force, pensioners, workers, miners, small businesses, and he had a promise for each group.
Whereas Humala’s closing rally yesterday emphasized his diagnosis of the problems facing Peru and some broad ideas for change, Garcia was full of specifics. He reserved harsh words for the government of Toledo, especially the management of the Camisea natural gas project. He was often funny and mordant.
Garcia struck characteristic poses on the podium, including resting with one elbow on the podium and the other on his hip, or reaching over the podium and looking down on the crowd like Haya de la Torre. The most intense moments of interaction with the crowd occurred when Garcia attacked the Palace of Justice, calling for a profound reform, or when he called for the death sentence for child molesters.
How much do these closing campaigns matter? It is hard to know. In a symposium in the Universidad del Pacifico, Alfredo Torres noted that in the last published APOYO poll Humala’s support had declined by two points, and this trend might well continue. There is probably great volatility in the electorate right now. The attacks on Humala in the press are relentless. They could have the effect of either undoing some of his support, or encouraging Humala supporters keep quiet—Torres spoke of a spiral of silence. The race may turnout to be closer than anyone imagined. In this context, the closing acts may have significance.
Más de 140 mil peruanos aptos para votar en USA
Cierre de Campaña de Alan García (APRA)
Source: El Comercio, 7 de abril del 2006
Cierre de Campaña de Lourdes Flores (UN)
Source: El Comercio, 7 de abril del 2006
Cierre de Campaña de Ollanta Humala (UPP) en Arequipa
Source: La República, 7 de abril del 2006. Foto: AP.
Cierre de Campaña de Valentín Paniagua (Frente de Centro)
Source: La República, 7 de abril del 2006. Foto: Yanina Patricio.
Cierre de Campaña de Susana Villarán (Concertación Descentralista) en Andahuaylas
Source: La República, 7 de abril del 2006. Foto: Rafael Cornejo
Cierre de Campaña de Javier Diez Canseco (Partido Socialista) en Puno
Source: La República, 7 de abril del 2006
Javier Diez Canseco, candidato presidencial por el Partido Socialista (PS), optó por cerrar su campaña con un mitin en Puno.