Jorge Alcocer V.
It’s no surprise that cLike at a fair, everyone saidAnd froml debate based on how their candidate did. What’s surprising is that both took to their Sunday 7 to complain about the format and blame INE from your own performance. Paradoxically, it turns out that if in 2012 the topic of the post-debate was the adjutant and her cleavage, then this time either format and hours, not the essence of what we are allowed to see I go each of the 3 participants.
Perhaps the format and richness of the questions formulated moderators interfered with the candidates’ speeches and made the candidate freeze in a smile, but let’s admit that “what nature does not provide, candidacy does not provide». With a truism, Let’s face it, the debate trio is what it is, and that’s how it performed last Sunday.
ANDblame the format or saywithout evidence which was changed at the last minute without informing the political partiesthis is inappropriate.
Information and explanations given by city councilors. INE Debate Commission leavesn it is clear that representatives of the two coalitions and He MCs were properly informed about the format and stairs on Sunday the 7th, like already they are what to useTo Sunday 28th April in the second debate.
There is an issue that, because of its impact on the debate, deserves attention. I am referring to the over-regulation that the bureaucratic dynamics of the INE impose on these confrontational exercises. For caring even about the smallest details, about a business that, in its inception, (1994) was relatively simple to process and resulted in a labyrinth. To the above we must add harmful practices election advisers overcome, or put aside, technical staff. There are male and female consultants who put their position first.
In LGIPE, debates between presidential candidates occupy one article – 218in which sets that there will be 2 mandatory debates between all candidates and that the General Council (INE) will “determine the rules, dates and venue, respecting the principle of equality between candidates.”
For this electoral process debate committeeconsists of 5 advisors, decidewalkedthrough 4 proposed agreements and dozens of pages, rules, dates and venue, as well as topics, formats and moderators, His decisions were later approved by the General Council.. In facts directors they decided majority and then informed representatives of the two coalitions and the Armed Forces.
The bureaucratic confusion is more than obvious. From November 2023 to January 2024 were approved That 4 debate agreements, with dozens of points, background, considerations and solutions, labyrinth hourThere are contradictions between agreements and omissions in Each of them. The parties knew, in January this year, the one who established the “format of every discussion.”
Says the following:
“23. The General Council Agreement identified the key INE/CG646/2023 through He which HE determine That formats What they will have That debate between candidacies To That Presidency from That Republic V 2024, No appoints A Format specific To every debate. (ANDemphasis added)
“24. For determine That appointment from Format To every one from That debate, HE They have to take V check That next two items: V first place, HE treats from A sequence of television programs or events that form a single whole narration And, V Second place, Format decade one And his target» (sic)
Without specifying the format of the agreement in question (CG/09/2024) established:
“According to specific approved formats (sic)the purpose of each discussion is next:
“Format A: Privileged citizen participation through social networks and the inclusion of regionalization of issues, while raising awareness of the candidates, their proposals and government plans.
“Format B: Promote idea-matching exercises between candidates, disseminate their proposals, prioritize direct citizen participation and include regionalization of issues, and explore candidate development with participating citizens.
“Format C: Prioritize interaction between candidates, and demonstrate to voters that debaters are responsive and restrained when directly questioned by other candidates.”
In addition to such purposes, the above agreement establishes the following agreement:
“To create a narrative that captures and maintains citizen interest, it is helpful to follow a structure: start with an introduction or approach; Secondly, the development of events in which the degree of demand and interaction between candidates increases, and then the result or decision.”
This is what the advisers approved and the representatives of the parties and candidates knew.
lcall “escalete”which sets order and duration Kandy’s interventiondata and moderators, it was decided 5 advisors and informed representatives of the two coalitions and the VC.
Criticism for handling cameras or malfunctioning stopwatches. Sunday the 7th They’re a different story; as well as the unprecedented intervention of the Presidential Adviser and three advisers selective on the debate floor.
PS On the same topic you can read my article in the R Magazine newspaper Reform on Sunday, April 14, and follow me at www.vozyvoto.com.mx.
Source: Aristegui Noticias

John Cameron is a journalist at The Nation View specializing in world news and current events, particularly in international politics and diplomacy. With expertise in international relations, he covers a range of topics including conflicts, politics and economic trends.