TSE-USA: An 80 in form, but always zero in substance

It was necessary to consider which course was appropriate for the new magistrates in light of the TSE fiasco, that mockery of 2019, where millions were demonized in an American election event that ultimately turned out to be a massive shipwreck. Let's just say that if there were any genuine objectives, the situation might have been different.

Three issues that were deemed to be essential in that failure are listed below: citizen rights and duties were not promoted internationally (there was no expectation); the documentation for these citizens was inadequate (people did not qualify); and the event itself was organized with gross negligence and inexperience (voting was inaccessible). The outcome could not have been any different from the grotesque 734 votes that they managed to muster, even with zero quetzales in the category of large-scale campaigns, only a few hundred DPI issued for the North, and four voting locations for that vast territory situated in foreign and unknown locations.

The challenges to overcome were obvious, and one might have wondered what to anticipate from a magistracy that attempted to correct that course as early as 2020. However, despite my belief that the third issue (the event's organization, as they recently announced), which I believe was finally resolved, was still present, the first two issues, which it is now clear were the primary ones, continued to be a problem.

There was never a strategy on the part of the government entity to promote the new exercise of civic rights, despite the fact that Guatemalans abroad were not a part of their country of origin's democracy; regrettably, there was no representative demand on the part of that population, who obviously already has other interests in his daily life. After the implementation of Renap, the State had much less of an intention to document expatriates. Since 2007, only about 200,000 DPI have been processed, and by 2019 and 2022, only 400,000 will have been done. This is unacceptable given the size of the population.

The Supreme Electoral Tribunal made announcements this week about the manner in which they will conduct this year's American elections. On the plus side, a number of what might be deemed egregious mistakes from the prior event were fixed.

Instead of simply naming some symbolic cities, districts were established in an effort to regionalize the area. B.

Additionally, from four to fifteen cities, there were quadruple as many voting locations. And, C.

Fortunately, The Court will consider the trend of using consular offices and public spaces (such as schools and churches, as is done when a mobile consulate occurs) as voting locations, amending the complaint that using pricey hotels for this purpose in 2019 was the only option. A score of 80 was assigned to the form, which could be raised by enhancing the constituencies and including additional areas like central Utah, the far Northwest of Washington and Oregon, New England, and Tennessee-Alabama.

However, I believe the answer to the question of whether this will result in a more respectable participation for the nation is categorically negative. a failure in the fundamentals.

In the end, the Tribunal made no attempt to advance the democratic values of Guatemala abroad, and the event will undoubtedly go unnoticed. The expectation is also low because only 400,000 DPI were issued abroad and fewer than 20,000 people voluntarily agreed to register for the census.

The magistrates made more of an effort to adapt their formal procedures to those of other nations, like Peru, that host popular events in the US, I believe. The question of whether or not their poor performance is the result of simple negligence or a lack of knowledge, or if everything is instead a part of a well-oiled and functionally established system in favor of purposes other than those mandated by law and the Constitution, lingers against magistrates and, I believe, every official who manages to hold a significant position in the government.

The question of whether or not their poor performance is the result of simple negligence or a lack of knowledge, or if everything is instead a part of a well-oiled and functionally established system in favor of purposes other than those mandated by law and the Constitution, lingers against magistrates and, I believe, every official who manages to hold a significant position in the government. However, a fundamental question still begs to be asked about magistrates and, I believe, every official who manages to hold a significant position in government: Are their poor outcomes the result of simple incompetence or negligence, or are they rather a product of a well-oiled and functionally established system for purposes other than those required by law and the Constitution?.

The question of whether or not their poor performance is the result of simple negligence or a lack of knowledge, or if everything is instead a part of a well-oiled and functionally established system in favor of purposes other than those mandated by law and the Constitution, lingers against magistrates and, I believe, every official who manages to hold a significant position in the government.