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.
= new reply since forum marked as read