In authentic elections, the polling place management is responsible for both receiving the votes and counting them, as well as recording the results in the tally sheets. In legitimate elections, the voter identifies themselves, receives the ballots, casts their vote in private, deposits them in the corresponding ballot box, and collects their credential after marking their thumb with indelible ink.
The records filled out by citizens who make up the polling place represent the legal truth of the voting. In judicial elections, the counting of votes at the polling places will not be conducted, which implies a fundamental difference in the electoral process.
In an authentic election, the polling places are made up of independent citizens and are under the supervision of party and candidate representatives. Each vote cast is scrutinized and counted publicly in the presence of representatives from the political actors.
However, in judicial elections, this process changes drastically. There will be no representatives of the parties at the polling places, and there will be no public counting of the votes. This creates uncertainty about the transparency and legitimacy of the electoral process in question.
The National Electoral Institute (INE) has been questioned for its decision to implement a single ballot box for depositing the ballots for all positions at stake, both at the federal and local levels. This change in the voting procedure has raised doubts about the possibility of manipulation and fraud in the final results.
In conventional elections, a clear and transparent procedure is followed that guarantees the integrity of the ballots cast. However, in judicial elections, the lack of oversight from political actors and the opacity of the vote counting process have raised suspicions about the legitimacy of the results.
