In recent years, Ecuadorians have become accustomed to the circulation of any kind of research.

From those that assess the favor of rulers (national or sectional), the credibility of institutions, the perception of the state of the country or what are its main problems, to those that appear during elections.

Until a little less than two decades ago, there were 3 or 4 fully identified pollsters here in Ecuador, whose figures were more or less reliable.

On August 20, the CNE began printing 39.6 million ballots for that process

I better explain “more or less”: I think they had a reasonable margin of error. If a poll showed 35% approval of the ruler, it might actually be 32% or 38%, but never 8% or 60%. Yes, if according to the survey candidate A had 30%, B 25%, C 20% and D 12%, it is possible that the reality was a few points more or less, but never that A has 4% or that D has 30% . I explain?

Unfortunately, as a result of the general erosion of our society’s values ​​and the relativization of almost everything, new pollsters have emerged who have undermined the credibility of polls in the country, turning them into yet another vote-grabbing tool, exploiting the candidacy on the assumption that X candidate is leading the way or has high expectations victories. Surveys on request.

Resignation of ‘made in Springfield’

Right time

For this reason, these days, polls conducted by unknown companies (probably non-existent or fresh from the political leader’s oven) are circulating in WhatsApp chats (with a memo that has been forwarded many times), with no name or company name, much less methodology or verifiable information.

Polls from the land of Alice or Narnia, in which, for example, they try to reduce the correista candidacy to 25%, unaware that this was its lowest point, at the end of the last Correia government, and that this is impossible with the recent sectional successes and the false step of the outgoing government , which embodied correísmo as its main opponent, did not experience a significant rise; or that they put the Social Christian candidacy at 4%, while the minimum starting point of the PSC is 10% (which together with correísmo are the only parties with a national structure); or they intend to elevate a candidate without any structure to a star level, with a heavy burden of political exhaustion on his back and who is popular only in the WhatsApp chats of Samborondón and Cumbayá.

What a difference compared to the CADEM surveys in Chile, for example, or the CIS surveys in Spain, which, when published, create in rulers, opponents and politicians reflections on how to improve their performance, and in the public a certain political pulse countries.

It is a shame that what should be a valuable guide to society has become the opposite: a tool for disinformation and manipulation to satisfy egos, run a political campaign and attack opponents.

Fortunately, the big voter doesn’t eat stories.

We will continue to comment… (O)