Razor-thin Conserv Wins in US, Mexico, Sweden--Coincidences?

[Blackhatjack]

Just asking a question here.

First Bush in the US election, then Calderon in 0.58% announced victory over Obrador in Mexico, and now the Conservative Party in in Sweden wins by a point in Sweden.

How is it that these reported elections are all so close and in every case the conservative candidate/party always wins? Are these all just coincidences?

The latest in Sweden saw a call for lower taxes on business and "reform" on the world's most comprehensive "cradle to the grave" welfare system so that Sweden could compete in "the global economy."

[zonkers]

1. Roves a genius.

[arcos]

2. You know, sometimes right wingers win clean elections...

The Mexican election was flawed, and so was the US election, but that doesn't mean that conservatives can't win in clean elections sometimes.

The Italian left was able to win with a razor thin margin too, and that was the case in Spain after the terrorist attacks too. The conservatives don't always win closely ofought elections.

There are lots of other examples... Oscar Arias won in Costa Rica, and although internationally he is considered a centrist, by Costa Rican standards he was the right winger. He won by just over 1% but there's also Bachelet in Chile, that although she wasn't in a very close race, she didn't win by a landslide either.

Why can't they be coincidences? I know that in flawed elections usually the right winger has the edge (like the México and US examples), but there are times where they win fair and square.

[rman]

3. This while Sweden has the fastest growing economy in Europe

I'd say no, these are not coincidences.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

7. Do you have any evidence...

...of fraud in Sweden's election? I know of no Swedes crying foul over the results.

[tritsofme]

4. I would venture to guess that Swedish "conservatives"

by and large sit to the left of most US Democrats.

But you forgot to add to your theory the razor thin victory for conservatives in Canada and Germany...or the razor thin victories of the left in Italy, Spain, and across Latin America.

But I have found out from this board, that unless someone's preferred candidate wins an election, it is much easier to scream fraud than to accept it.

[liberaldemocrat7]

6. I would say in various countries we live in a closely divided world.

Kennedy won a very close race in 1960 and Nixon won a close race in 1968. Only the second election showed wider margins. Johnson won by a landslide in 1964 and so did Nixon in 1972.

The Chimp stole 2 elections and we had a very divided electorate. The Chimp did and does not have any type of large approval rate today and he stands as a minority pResident.

Historians will rate him low on the scale of greatness and people will comapre GW Bush to Wrong way Corrigan, Ferdinand Marcos, Slobodan Milosevic, and Hitler.

What American president has the right to set up private torture rooms, enable high tech colonialism in 3rd world countries, steal elections as if he ruled in the phillipines, and build a propaganda machine that Himmler and Goebells would envy?

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

5. Yet another instance...

...of selective presentation of the facts. As arcos points out upthread, there are plenty of instances where liberals/progressives/left-leaning candidates have won closely contested elections. Not every election is like Mexico's, where there seems to be a mountain of evidence of fraud of various descriptions.

I find it telling that you bring up Sweden, and then another person in this thread brings up the fact that Sweden's economy is strong as a reason that people would want to keep the Social Democrats in power (and thus this somehow points to fraud in the election.)

The problem in Sweden is that a lot of people feel that, for having been in power as long as they have, the Social Democrats have done a poor job of translating this economic growth into benefits and more jobs for ordinary people. There is nothing sinister at play in that belief. The Social Democrats are simply suffering the fate that tends to befall any party which has been in power for a long time - peoples expectations of them are exceedingly high.

Close elections do not imply fraud. They do make the possibility of fraud greater, but unless you've got specific information on potential fraud in the elections you cited (besides Mexico, where I think the fraud situation is obvious, and vastly different than any of the other elections you cited) then you've got to accept the fact that sometimes conservatives do win elections.

[rpannier]

8. There have been no allegations of fraud in Sweden

In this case...it's most likely the conservatives won the election fairly.

[skipos]

9. What about Italy?

nt

[Blackhatjack]

10. When We Look at Facts, Amazing What We Learn Here ....

There are so many excellent points made here in response to the OP. The collective knowledge of DU posters is a real plus for those of us looking for answers. IF I could change one thing, it would be the ascribing of surreptitious agendas and evil motives to the posting of factual topics for discussion. I have always believed that facts do not have an ideology or agenda. Only their interpretation falls into that category.

I find it hard to believe that so many countries in the world that actually conduct elections to choose their leaders are divided so closely within on ideological issues related to governing policy. I do not recall so many elections being so close. And yes, I should have added Germany and other countries to my questions to be comprehensive.

However, it struck me odd that Sweden has always been so homogenous in its population makeup, and liberal in its provision for its citizens, that the electorate should be so evenly divided especially when the winner advocated lower taxes on businesses and reform of their very well supported program of government welfare assistance.

Mexico is a horse of a different color. Allegations and proof of fraud are everywhere. And after 2000 and 2004 I need mention nothing to this group regarding the manipulation of elections in the US.

Living in a world where countries have different ideas about issues and ideology has been the standard for a very long time. Living in a world where countries themselves are evenly divided within on issues and ideology appears to be something new.

Is all of this coincidence or not? I don't know, but I am searching for answers as to how we got to this point in history.

[nolabels]

11. The problem is the internets

Before that internets stuff came all the information was oblivious and we didn't have these problems.
So lets just get rid of the internets :sarcasm:

[FoxOnTheRun]

12. Of course not

S, Reinfeldt, Fredrik – Chairman Conservative Party from Sweden attended the Bilderberg meeting in Ottawa.
http://www.geocities.com/benribqqq/bilderberg2006.html


http://www.bilderberg.org/

[CJCRANE]

13. I lived in a third world

country during an election during which the ruling party won by less than 1%. And I was told (indirectly) how it was done (in a paper-based system). (You basically spoil as many opposition ballots as you can to ensure a victory. Obviously the less you spoil the less suspicious it looks).

The reason I say I was told indirectly is that I was told (by an inside source) that the "spoiled" ballots all had exactly the same drawing on them (and I put two and two together).

[Blackhatjack]

14. Statistical Analysis of Spoiled Ballots Can Give Us Insight....

...for example, how many people go to the polls and vote without making a choice for President? or they vote for a Democrat candidate AND a third party candidate for the same race on the same ballot?

We can draw pretty accurate inferences from facts about what really happened in the election process. However, nothing changes the fact that so many ballots either had no choice for the top race, or had two choices for the same race(Dem & 3rd party) and none showed two choices for Republican and another candidate.

[Blackhatjack]

15. Democracies depend on transparent elections to have legitimate leaders

...that is it in a nutshell.

The fraud in the Ohio vote of 2004 has been preserved photographically, and the attempt to destroy the ballots has been temporarily averted by court order. However, it is easy to see how elections could be 'stolen' and covered up when those in control of the election have a reason to see the evidence of fraud destroyed.

It does not get much play here, but I believe conservative republican voters, who are not part of the NeoCon wing, very much fear the assaults on fair and accurate elections. In many ways their concerns about electronic voting machines, voting procedures, etc are the same as most Democrats.

I believe conservatives can win fair elections. I do not think all elected conservatives won their elections by obtaining the most votes. Spoiled ballots, hanging chads, absentee ballots, etc always have an effect on the election outcome where the outcome is razor thin.

The problem in Mexico is that the evidence of fraud was rampant, and fell into the hands of those bringing the fraud to the attention of the election authorities charged with ensuring fair elections. An elected leader without legitimacy bestowed upon him/her by the electorate is illegitimate, and democracy cannot function where the leader has no legitimacy. In that case, the government itself is no longer democratic.