At times I go to speak to you (the few who still believe that I read. By the way, soon return to the rotation of the opinion blogger, stay tuned) to present a few of my thoughts previous the referendum of May 7, 2011.
government's dirty campaign (Correa) and his opponents
This and any other government can do consultations that shit they want. Also, according to the current constitution, any citizen can call a referendum being subject to the respective conditions. What I think is dirty, disgusting, vile, shameless is to try to induce respondents to make a decision.
When I consult something is to give me an answer, favorable or not, and I stick to that answer. What sense does it look something compelling or encouraging my office I respond to what I hear?
For me, it should be imperative to include a clear prohibition to campaign in a referendum. The only allowable would release the contents of the questions. Well, some say, "but the corrupt media, disguising the intention of spreading the questions, could perform analysis to tip the balance somewhere." That would be the only risk but it seems more ethical than empty propaganda bombing of CHUCHO NO VOTE, BECAUSE IF If you vote yes or vote VERGA WALLIS AND DO NOT BE GAY; addition, the government has its ways spread their "bias" but again, it is more ethical to advertise directly to an option.
Consultations must be for things simple, nontechnical
By God! Who the hell would think to ask Juan Tragedy, country man, barely able to read and write, on legal reform with a highly technical text? Man vote YES or NO as you are told. If the man is a person who receives GOVERNMENT BOND, THE GOVERNMENT UREA, Government House and someone tells you to VOTE NO VOTE AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT, how do you think will vote?
Correa has used this request as an outlet for her people "to answer" and would "give permission" to do things which do not have the guts to execute the task on their own (and do not want to be told "dictator", this time with true causal). Through consultation, Correa, as did Pontius Pilate washing his hands and say "you asked for reforms."
Why not ask if we want the vote no longer be compulsory for everyone?
Final Reflections: The feint of presumptive winner
NO linebackers to say that NO will win: VALEN VERGA! Declared the winner before the votes is like committing suicide: the undecided voters who have some sympathy with the government are likely to be convinced to vote for the SI and they can flip tortilla.
SI For supporters who say that the SI will win: WELL WORTH VERGA! Although this insult is free. I am convinced that if he wins all the questions but in a few cantons (perhaps counted on the fingers of one hand), some questions get the opposite response. Thus, I predict that in Guayaquil, on the question of the casinos win NO and Quito in the question of the bulls, mostly win NO.
For my part, I will vote only if the first question and no to others. You
, vote as fuck like but as Miche says, if they know how to vote, the better vote NO.
0 comments:
Post a Comment