What was planned: little could be more boring than a televised performance by two improv groups whose main goal was not to make waves. Convinced of the story forged by new trends in political consulting, which claims that neither candidate is interested in a confrontation because they risk losing votes, both of them avoided the fundamental questions, the ones that make up the debate itself. To get out of the trance, it was enough to remember a few answers to previously set topics. Better results would certainly be achieved with robots or any means of artificial intelligence. The performance was so painful that people, with the malice inherent in social networks, suspected the use of sophisticated means to dictate in real time the appropriate texts for the answers, and especially for the questions they had to ask the opponent.

The presidential candidates cited Fernando Villavicencio in the security axis of the discussion

It is said that the previous speech (which cannot even be called a debate) was one of the factors that, along with the murder of Fernando Villavicenci, changed the trend shown by the polls and placed Daniel Noboa in second place. Assuming that was the case, it’s worth wondering what effects last Sunday’s event will have, in which, while both were within astronomical distance of what is expected of a presidential candidate, Noboa bore the brunt. According to polls published by Thursday, the last day to do so, the distance between the two has shortened and if the trend continues, a technical tie will be reached in a few days. Regardless of the causes that caused it, the truth is that such a state is the least suitable for the state. A narrow result will open doubts about the purity of the election, and the problem will be left to the National Electoral Council, which could find a solution similar to the violation of the law and repeat the elections of parliamentarians abroad. Only the final result would avoid suspicion of fraud and manipulation.

(…) the discussion should have reaffirmed that we are once again facing the dilemma of the lesser evil.

If the discussion served anything, it was a confirmation that we are once again faced with the dilemma of the lesser evil. But on this occasion, it is almost impossible to make that decision if we do not return to the contradiction that both wanted to avoid, the Koreanism-anti-Koreanism that marks all elections since the sheepherder entered the scene. Not one of them has put forward clear and sustainable proposals on issues that concern ordinary people, such as insecurity, the economy, the health system or the future of social security. Both have tried to turn generalities into pills for immediate consumption, such as reducing a transnational and multidimensional problem, such as drug trafficking, to the equipment of police officers and prison control or politics of the state dimension and long term. as well as education at all its levels, up to the entrance exam.

Daniel Noboa and Luisa González offer ‘off script’, what happens to what is not included in their work plans?

The so-called debate, broadcast on television and nationally, was a robotic monologue. If someone endured two long hours because he was looking for elements to define his voice, he had better understand that the dilemma between two automatons will only be defined by a contradiction that has prevailed for more than fifteen years. (OR)