OMG! A populist has won! Time for the Economic Hitmen to pay a visit!

Democratic socialism is thriving in Latin America.

That seems rather a wide discrepancy between approval rating and projected vote, even allowing for some voters who may like Correa but are to the left or right of him on significant issues and may vote for candidates more reflective of their views, since that opportunity apparently exists. You would think that a nearly 70% approval rating would pull more votes, however. I don't know much about political parties and organization in Ecuador. Paraguay, for instance, has a chronically fractured and fractious left; it was remarkable that Fernando Lugo, the beloved "bishop of the poor," won the presidency in Paraguay but he never had a strong political organization and thus was vulnerable to a rightwing coup d'etat. Even some of the leftists betrayed him. Is Ecuador's left that fractious and unstable? Is that why there are so many candidates, and Correa is only expected to get a plurality of votes? Is there some other cause? Does it matter to anybody? Is Correa obliged to incorporate other candidates/parties/issues into his government, if they get significant votes (as would be the case in a parliamentary system)? Dunno. Need more info.

I do know that many Latin Americans consider our two-party system to be oppressive and anti-democratic--suppressive of a variety of views and public participation--but are there any policy consequences to having a multi-party system, given that it is not a parliamentary system?

But Correa's achievement of a stable Ecuador is stunning, for all that. Ecuador had seven president in ten years and none of them finished their terms, before Correa! That is a dramatic turnaround, and in itself fosters common purpose, economic growth and prosperity. He is also a very progressive president in the FDR and Chavez-da Silva-Kirchner-Morales mold--a champion of the poor majority devoted to fairness and social justice, and use of the country's resources--in Ecuador's case, mainly oil-- to benefit the people who live there. Though the article's headline is absurd and insulting in its way, there ARE very strong bonds among all of these leftist leaders, and Ecuador and Venezuela both enjoy the riches of large oil deposits (and both are members of OPEC--the others aren't). But calling Correa "Ecuador's Chavez" is going too far. It's a stupid headline--seemingly written by someone who knows just a name or two of South American leaders and thought to show off his or her ignorance--as well as being a demeaning headline, as if Correa couldn't think up social justice and other progressive policies all on his own.

I would like to see the following:

A democratic system but where a candidate can pledge his votes to another in the event that he loses:

For example, Ralph Nader could run as a Green, but pledge that should he lose all of his votes could go to the Democratic candidate. Likewise, Ron Paul could do the same on the right.

This, I think, would totally change things as people could actually vote for who they wanted to win without worrying about "throwing away their vote" or "voting for the other side".

...the biggest problem about the multi-partisan structure is that there are several parties created without a solid or even declared ideology, a plan for the country, or clear intentions. They are called "legendas de aluguel" (parties for rent) and their members are generally there to return the favor of those groups who financed their campaigns and, several times, take advantage, take adventure of the political system. The biggest party in Brazil in number of elected politicians is one of these types of parties, PMDB, which was funded as a progressive party to run against the military junta's Arena, and after achieving power, expanded to a level that it ended up losing its initial objectives. It supported Fernando Henrique Cardoso's government, Lula's government, Dilma's government and will support any other party which achieves presidency. They have a large number of chairs in the congress and in the senate and neither the right nor the left can govern without them. It's somehow a structure of balancing, avoiding the country of going too much for the right or too much for the left. They block the governamental measure which they seem as "too radical". Of course, there's still the problem of what they consider as "radical". That's why the Brazilian government wants a media law, but can't do it as in Argentina where there the political arena is more divided in two larger forces. I suppose Ecuador is somewhat similar.

See below for more thoughts on these pollsters, who were way, way off. In fact, Correa's popularity in Ecuador was reflected in the vote. He won the presidency outright--no runoff.

Let's remember who they are...

"Quito-based polling firms Perfiles de Opinion and CIEES" and

"Mexico-based pollster ARCOP."

The first said Correa would get only 40% of the vote. The second said he would face a run-off. Both wrong by a huge margin. I would guess that they are the sort of pollsters who don't go into poor and/or rural areas, or poll only by cell phone, or have other flaws that skewer their predictions so badly. It's possible that they are politically influenced--i.e., rightwing pollsters trying to influence voters by misrepresenting Correa's popularity before the election, but I don't know this for sure, and, if it's true, they certainly failed.

-----------------

Here's the report on Correa's 61% victory:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014401687