Surveys and citizen responsibility – El Sol de México

According to the Oraculus Poll of Polls, in the aggregate of the main polls for the Presidency, the official candidacy would have, at the April 8 cut-off, an advantage over the opposition of 24 percentage points. To many of us this seems counterintuitive due to the results of the 2021 federal elections and even those of 2018, especially in such a polarized environment and with so much variation in the numbers of the polling houses.

However, that aggregate has barely moved two points since July 2023 and we are two months away from the elections. If, with all the objections that may be made to the polls, they say something for strategic purposes, in the case of the opposition candidacy (the Citizen Movement’s is at 6%) a clearly and urgently needed more disruptive and impactful campaign.

To begin with, to see a closer competition, it is essential to encourage citizen involvement and a large participation on June 2, capable of challenging the scenario outlined, whether faithfully or distorted, by these demoscopic exercises.

Overcoming abstentionism is a primary challenge, fundamentally for the opposition, both in the campaign for the presidency and for Congress and the nine governorships to be renewed. It is for all citizens, and in particular for those of us who want a Mexico with political plurality and democratic challenges to power.

To achieve this influx, it is critical that it be clear what is at stake in this sense: the dilemma between a plural and democratic Mexico, as a basis for facing collective challenges, or one that is heading towards the concentration of power without counterweights, as stated. It occurred in the country throughout its history until we turned to a democratic transition, with all its imperfections, pending and risks, but also as a hope and a civic will.

The fundamental thing in these elections is that. The contrast between the aspiration of a country for democratic rule of law institutions and that of a political group that considers that, either for the causes it advocates or its popularity, it should be above these.

As long as there is great civic participation, with each one of us responsible for that crucial decision, the elections cannot be defined in advance. Beyond what the surveys show, which, furthermore, as a whole, suffer from many problems.

In the Poll of Polls, the differences are so great that it is impossible not to think that something is not working well in that industry. Those with the shortest distance give an advantage of less than 20 points to the leading candidate: 18 points in the case of El Financiero, or 13, for Altica. On the other hand, others give it more than 30: Covarrubias, 32; Demotecnia, 35, and Simo, 40!

As electoral campaign consultant Rafael Giménez Valdés has explained in an interesting article in Nexos, it is evident that there is a distortion, that this may be distorting the debate and the formation of public opinion, and that it has become a tool of propaganda, either to generate an effect of “hooking” the leading bandwagon or to discourage participation and the so-called useful vote, generating an emotional environment of inevitability or self-fulfilling prophecy.

The key is to turn that around: that what decides is the massive, informed and conscious vote, of all of us who are over 18 years old, of the dilemma in front of us, going to our polling station, without pretexts, and voting responsibly. .

Until that day we will know if a good part of these surveys overestimated the official candidacy. Meanwhile, there are other probable predictors that contrast with the surveys; specifically, the effective votes in the last elections.

Like those of the State of Mexico, considered a microcosm of the country in electoral matters. There, in 2023, the polls averaged advantages of 18 to 20 percentage points in favor of the candidate who ended up winning, but she did so by only eight. Giménez Valdés highlights that the polls could have had important effects on the behavior of political actors and, although it is difficult to know how many voters they discouraged or “hooked on the winning bandwagon”, it can be seen as a strategy rehearsal for June 2.

In observed and not predictive data, in the 2021 federal election, the ruling coalition obtained 45% of the vote, very far from the levels of 60% that are managed today, and the opposition bloc (not including MC), almost 40 percent. This occurred with an attendance of less than 53% of the electorate. In the six-year elections, participation has been between 60%, and now it should not be different, even exceeding the average.

In 2018, the winner of the presidential race received 53.2% of the vote, against a split vote of two major challengers. With a membership of almost 90 million, some 30 million supported it. According to today’s polls, the official candidacy, against a single relevant candidate and a nominal list of almost 100 million, would increase the mark by about 6 million.

They are contrasts with surveys that, again, seem counterintuitive. By common sense, it is difficult to believe that the distance can be more than 10 percentage points. In any case, they tell us that a result cannot be taken for granted from now on, especially if the campaigns are of greater contrast and encourage massive citizen participation, who understands the significance of their decision.

A crucial point, in which what Enrique Krauze recently published hits the nail on the head: Mexican democracy is barely the age of young people who go to the polls for the first time, but young people vote little. Many of us, older people, are concerned about its future; we lived when it did not exist; so that it does not happen that young people have to begin to value it if it were to be missing.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *