We write to dissent respectfully, but vigorously, from your editorial “Mexico’s pool dispute” (August 8). In arguing for a full recount you state that the “benefits far outweigh the disadvantages.” In fact, the opposite is true. Bowing to pressure from Mr. Lopez Obrador and his followers in the streets, when there is no credible evidence of widespread fraud or abuse at the polls, would inevitably bring into question electoral institutions and procedures that, by all accounts from objective observers--both Mexican and foreign--performed fairly and impartially.

Resident Scholar Claude Barfield

Research Fellow Mario Villarreal

On election day, the count was supervised by the Federal Election Institute (IFE), working with 900,000 citizen volunteers at the precincts, under the scrutiny of 24,000 national and almost 700 international electoral observers. In addition, almost a million party representatives, including 250,000 from Mr. Lopez Obrador’s coalition, guarded the interests of their candidates. Undoubtedly, there was potential for mistakes, but Mexican law provides legal venues to handle disputes on a precinct by precinct basis (now in process). Interestingly, Mr. Lopez Obrador and his allies have challenged only the presidential count, while failing to mount a challenge to the simultaneous Mexican Congress and Senate election process, where they enjoyed unprecedented success and where the procedures, supervising personnel and safeguards were identical.

True democratic legitimacy for Mexico will come from upholding the rule of law, not trampling upon rules and regulations that all candidates endorsed before and during the contest.

Claude Barfield is a resident scholar and director of science and technology policy studies at AEI. Mario Villarreal is a research fellow at AEI.