I believe that the thousands of people who followed the debate did not miss the fact that the format chosen by the National Electoral Council (CNE) was disastrous. Not only did it confuse the presidential candidates, but also the moderators themselves, who had to ask the “production” in various parts of the debate who was going to speak, and in other cases to ask.

In view of the above, it becomes urgent to modify not only the format but also the questions asked to the debaters, because besides being endless and confusing, they did not allow them to develop an adequate answer, to answer, almost by heart, practiced answers in just one minute. which were more or less easy for some presidential candidates, but certainly a real mental and intellectual challenge for others.

These are the observations on the debate of the seven presidential candidates: our columnists speak

But I’m one of those people who sees the glass as half full, not half empty. A democratic exercise in airing ideas (what we saw on Sunday was not a debate) will always be well received, as it allows us, even in this disgusting format, to get a sense of the stuff each candidate is made of.

And so we could see Daniel Noboa who, although he started a little slowly and timidly, gradually calmed down, presenting his ideas clearly and calmly. He did not have the best presentation on the issue of decentralization and autonomy, although I must admit that the issue was poorly elaborated. I don’t know if there was a lawyer on that question-writing committee, but the truth is that what was consulted caused a lot of confusion. Only then did Hervas realize what he actually wanted to ask.

In short, a conversation that, despite its format … still served to gain a first impression …

The theme went with a well-rehearsed approach to the issue of security. In the first block, he felt in his comfort zone and did quite well. Then he was speechless for a long time (format error) and then unresponsive. It was calm and smooth. Clearly his forte is security issues and he made that very clear in the debate.

https://www.eluniverso.com/opinion/columnistas/estas-son-las-observaciones-al-debate-de-los-siete-candidatos-presidenciales-nuestras-columnistas-hablan-nota/

The best part of Otto Sonnenholzner was economy, he seemed comfortable and composed. At the beginning of the discussion, I think he was very worried and sometimes his ideas ran over him. In the debate, he calmed down and addressed the criticism he received for resigning as vice president. His strategy of using questions to publicize his work plan was intelligent.

About Luisa González, a little comment. It didn’t clash. He went on his own. To position your idea that in the governments of the Civil Revolution everything was better than now and that it will return with it. No doubt she consolidated her electorate, but I strongly doubt that the intervention helped her to get the undecideds to vote for her.

In short, a conversation that, despite its format and interruptions at the beginning, still served to get a first impression of who the candidates for president of the Republic are for this short period and what their main ideas are to get us out of prostration. in which we meet.

This is no time for indecision. We go to the elections this Sunday, August 20, with faith and hope. (OR)