MARCH 23, 2012

The Pioneer Log Opinion

Nothing is definitive, including polls

BY ROBIN AUBRY
Staff Writer

Indigenous Ecuadorians fight for respect and citizenship

BY LINDSEY BOSSE
Foreign Correspondent

ILLUSTRATION BY SAMANTHA SARVET

On March 22, an incredibly determined group of Ecuadorians reached Quito in what has been a two-week march in defense of water, life and dignity of the people. Witnessing how other countries handle disagreements with their governments is always interesting, and in this case its even more fascinating to see the rest of the countrys reaction. The marchers are primarily members of Ecuadors indigenous population, who are visibly the most upset over the Presidents recent signature on a contract with a mining company. This preliminary signing foreshadows the threatened Yasuni oil contract that President Correa would like to sign in the future, which would destroy one of the most biodiverse ecosystems in the world. But this march isnt necessarily as much about environmentalism as it is about the government recognizing its citizens rights over the fiscal benefits of such contracts. The greatest issue facing Ecuadorian people is the definition of what is an Ecuadorian citizen; for years now, the indigenous populations have had to fight to simultaneously keep their ways and be citizens of the country they reside in. The new mining contract threatens the water in the rivers that indigenous populations in the south of Ecuador count on for survival. It concurrently has the potential to level the debt that President Correa is expanding with deals with the Chinese government. Double-edged sword? Yes. And all because this very small country, with about the same area as Colorado, has many distinctly different populations with drastically different needs. I have been adequately convinced for some time that democracy is a very large fantasy that will never come true; there is no way for a government to actually meet the needs and wants of the entire people. Due to power struggles, information inadequacies, neglect of communication and simple differences, people within a country have no hope of having the

same wants and needs or the ability to communicate with the people that reside over them. The government is first and foremost concerned with the issues on its desk, which rarely ever show the struggles of the people that truly need attention. This is how democracy slowly alienates its people. A citizen of a democracy simply lives there, but the agenda of a democracy is based on the people who are able to make appointments and appeals, such as mining companies and banks. Looking at our own democracy, how do we measure up next to world banks, international threats and party conflicts within the House and Congress? Voting is an ideal way to communicate; however, how are all the citizens voting supposed to have equal information and equal say? What if the person voting wants something completely different than whats being offered? Shouldnt there be comment cards on ballots? But even if there were, the comments would be so varied and plentiful that they would pile up and never find an audience. What it comes down to, in my nave and hopeful state of mind, is communication among the people. Cohesion comes from within the citizenship and not beyond it. A leader of a country is merely a representative to the people who need the decisions of a higher power, while that country is truly defined by the people within it. The Ecuadorian people need to stand behind their fellow indigenous Ecuadorians in order for the government to understand that the nation wants more from it. (North) Americans have to back one another up in order to ensure that needs arebeing met, especially considering the vast landmass we cover, and not to mention the hundreds of distinctly different groups within our boundaries. Looking simply at the Occupy movement, success will only be possible with support. Only when the citizens believe that they have a right to the benefits of this world they live in will the world be the way citizens want.

In my inbox last week, I received an e-mail from Jim Messina, the campaign manager for Obama For America (full disclosure, I receive mass e-mails from the Obama campaign), who cautioned: If the election were today [against Mitt Romney], we would lose. This warning also came as the latest New York TimesCBS News poll found Obamas approval rating at 41%, down nine points from mid-February. Indeed, last week was not kind to the President. Mr. Messina, however, was referring to a poll recently published by Washington Post-ABC News from March 10, which asked, If the presidential election were being held today and the candidates were [Barack Obama and Mitt Romney], for whom would you vote? The result was 47% Romney, 46% Obama. Now, this poll was one of many, and was in the minority of polls that found Romney the victor. For example, the Pew Research Center released a poll from March 14, which found that if the election were held today Obama would take home a 54-42 percent victory! Why such a large difference between polls? Did people change their minds so dramatically between March 10 and March 14? Its possible, after Romney was defeated soundly in Alabama and Mississippi on March 13. More likely, however, is an idea that reminds me of an old joke: 87% of Americans agree that polls are inac-

If the election were today [against Mitt Romney], we would lose.

curate. While the polls are useful to gather general information about how the public has reacted to the actions of candidates and general events, they are rife with ambiguity and faulty figures. Last year, I was honored to be part of a poll over the phone (curse you, DMV, for publicizing my phone number as a democrat!) regarding the mayoral elections of San Francisco. One of the questions went like so: Candidate A has a plan X to save 5% on issue L. Candidate B has a plan Y to save 35%. Do you think that its better to save 5%, or 35%? Well, with all due respect, I said, that seems to be a leading question. I can see how you would think that, said the pollster. Granted, that poll was part of a campaign for none other than that corrupt animal Candidate B. Most professional sources for polling are very careful about the wording to each question they ask, to avoid pandering to one side like the aforementioned polling experience. But however impartial and transparent pollsters try to be about their work, there is some margin for error inherent to polling that the literal margin of error does not cover. Does this mean that the President is not in trouble? No, he is. A rise in oil prices, combined with two abhorrent military-related issues in two months in Afghanistan is not a good thing for any commander-in-chief. And if you forgot about these two big issues, rest assured that all three republican candidates, and the GOP as a whole, would be happy to refresh your memory at the smallest of opportunities, using as much bombastic rhetoric as they can muster. Moreover, the Supreme Court will rule on the highly controversial Obamacare in the coming month or so. A loss for the White House regarding their hard-fought healthcare policy could spell a behemoth of trouble. The bottom line is this: While the Times-CBS poll posted Obamas approval rating at 41%, the Washington Post-ABC News mentioned earlier posted the approval rating at 46% even though Washington Post-ABC News projects the Romney victory if the election were held today, while the New York Times-CBS News poll (with the more critical approval rating) found Obama winning 47-44%. I dont always read the polls; but when I do, I take them with a grain of salt. Stay skeptical, my friends.

ADVERTISEMENT