ConstitutionCon 2023

I’m back!

So, I wasn’t able to vote in the previous one because I hadn’t served my probation yet.

Looking through the Santiago candidates here, I see that it comes down to Partido Republicano or Partido de la Gente. Wiki says that the latter are populist centre-right to right wing party which is good enough for me if some pseudo-fachos can make a few more leftist heads explode by vetoing articles in the new draft.

That said, I don’t want to be splitting the vote with Chile GOP, so does anyone have any input as to what the preferred course of action would be? I don’t see it in @feargle’s helpful spectrum chart.


Second question is how does the voting work for your preferred party? In the case of the GOP, for example, There are five candidates:


I’ve seen an image of an example ballot from ConstitutionCon 2021:

It appears that it’s a direct election which seems super retarded because if everyone who supports, say, the Republicans, gives their votes to a single one of those candidates, it will mean fewer seats in ConstitutionCon, or am I misunderstanding something?

Third, what is happening with the independent candidates issue? Do they have them again this round cos I don’t see them listed anywhere on the site? Or does it work like write-ins?

I don’t trust PDG, their members have proven to be two-faced and unprincipled when they win political office (like the establishment elite “right”). And I do believe their leader ran for President knowing he would not win but purely to generate the income needed so he could physically return free and clear to Chile. So that sleaziness probably rubs off on the other members.

It’s also good there are no independent candidates as elections since 18O have shown that label as a cover to get more far leftists into positions of power.

1 Like

GOP (grand old party) is what Chile Repubs are NOT. They are the newest kid on the block.

I understand sometimes poster Tom Brad has been involved in their formation and growth.

I’m aware. :clown_face:

Like the sherrif :rofl:

1 Like

I already stated that, like most Chileans, I was fed up with this whole process, and intended to spoil the ballot paper. But on reflection, wiser counsels, (including eeuu’s :slight_smile: ), prevailed. Its another opportunity to show the whole political establishment the error of its ways.

So, to clarify the process, here’s how it goes:

If you are registered as a voter, go here to find out where to vote.

Regarding the voting process itself:

¿Cómo es el voto de las elecciones del 7 de mayo?

El 7 de mayo deberás votar solamente por [un candidato] a consejero constitucional, el cual pertenecerá a un pacto o partido político. Si votas por más de un nombre, el voto será considerado nulo.

There are Five electoral pacts, which are mostly conglomerates of the existing political parties, defined as Listas/Pactos A through E.

A - Partido de la Gente.
B - Todo Por Chile.
C - Partido Republicano de Chile.
D - Unidad Para Chile.
E - Chile Seguro.

Here’s an example of the composition of those pacts.

Having got so far, remember you get to choose only ONE candidate for your region from only ONE of those pacts, here’s a nationwide list.

To me, this whole process shows how far the politicians have become detached from an increasingly grim reality.

Thanks, feargle.

I’m still in the dark about the selection of that ONE candidate, though. I don’t understand the system.

Let me try to explain better.

Let’s take the candidates I listed previously

Macarena Del Carmen
Luis Silva
Tabita Silva
Ignacio Dulger
Sylvia Del Carmen
Jorge Ossandon

Let’s say there are 10000 voters in the voting constituency and 3000 of them want to vote Partido Republicano. I’m from South Africa where we have pure proportional representation (at national level, anyway) so you’d vote for the party (or, in this case, the coalition), and then based on the party’s performance, they would select a proportional number of the candidates from the pre-approved list.

But here, we’re electing the candidates directly under the equivalent of what we would call a ‘party list’, the list being the aforementioned list of candidates.

This seems incredibly stupid to me because you could wind up in a situation where in an extreme case, one candidate, say Macarena Del Carmen, receives all 3000 of the Partido Republicano vote, and the Partido Republicano voters end up with a single seat from that constituency when they might have had more if the Partido Republicano candidates received a more even spread of the vote.

I must be missing something?

The actual number of seats per region is quite low, between 2 and 5, depending on population, I suppose. And this election is only for a total of 45 consejeros, from this page, at least that’s what I counted.

So, from that page, to take an example,

Región de Arica y Parinacota - Circunscripción 1 (2 representantes)

  • Partido de la Gente
  1. Nora Del Carmen Bugueño Aguilera.
  2. Sergio Humberto Ríos Gamboa.
  3. Karla Angélica Añes Gajardo.
  4. Ernesto Rodrigo Plasencia Rojas.

But there are only two available seats for that region. I suspect its because of the D’Hont voting system which allows for proportional representation, rather than a first-past-the-post system. The results for every candidate from a particular party can be summed.

It’s the D’Hondt voting system, introduced by Bachelet, that gave the Communists their foothold in Congress, and its why Chile now has so many political parties.

Watching my voting location across from the depto. The militares arrived shortly ago at around 3:30 pm. There was no school today. I see the Servel people carrying in the empty ballot boxes.

The schools that are used as voting locations on Sunday the 7th ended up cancelling classes on Friday the 5th for setting up the “mesas.” Apparently the notice of cancellation of classes on this day was not adequately communicated to parents, who had to make unexpected arrangements for caring for school children. Chile: All Ways Disappointing.

I reckon everyone knows this is another mandatory voting event for most permanent residents.

OK, so the “extremist” Republicans are looking dominant early doors.

Constituent candidate elections in Chile 2023, live | The extreme right leads the count with more than 45% counted | THE COUNTRY Chile (

Are you feeling better about your decision? :upside_down_face:

So, I think enough votes are in that we can call it. I think it went about as expected. In the past elections, the % didn´t change much after about this point, but you can follow the counting here SERVEL - Elecciones

Partido Republicano did very well, growth as expected, perhaps even more than I thought. I guess they are benefiting from dissatisfaction with existing parties, and frustrations with the cost of living, immigration, crime, and the current government. None of which are especially relevant for a constitution vote in my view. Kast could yet have another go at becoming President in a few years?

Chile Seguro did OK at over 20%, perhaps for similar reason as above, but perhaps a bit tainted by their own history at closeness of establishment.

Partido de la Gente very bad, deservedly as Franco Parisi is an embarrassment, he is already sat on a plane back to the US having not even bothered to stay around for the final results because he says he has meetings tomorrow in the US. I think they are fast becoming an irrelevance.

The Unidad Para Chile grouping of left wingers including Boric´s party, socialists and communists actually has a respectable number of 28% for now. I think that might be a bit better than expected. My theory here is that after the estallido and Boric´s victory and other elections in which they have done well they have managed to consolidate a voter base of young people especially and perhaps educated city folk.

The centre left Todo Por Chile is at 9% with the Democrata Cristiana at under 4%! I think they seem to be (perhaps unfairly) tainted negatively with the past, and I don´t think they have a large enough core supporter base. Like, there is no group, young or old, rural or urban, educated or working class, that will predictably vote for them anymore.

Seem to be a lot less independents elected than last time. As far as I could tell, I didn´t even see any on the ballot this time in the Region Metropolitana. I am not sure what is going on there? Why that was? Last time the independents did really well.

So with the right getting (TBC) over 50% of the vote: (very different to the balance last time)

– any attempt at meaningful change will be blocked.
– forget about all the radical social justice and rights guaranteed in the last constitution.
– possibly a short, simple constitution that leaves more to congress rather than the constitution.
– probably good news for the police.
– not likely substantial change to institutions

and Chile very likely to remain a capitalist, right wing country for another decade or two at least since not only is there no reform at a constitution level, it´s not happening in congress either (for example the failure to recently pass tax reform that was needed for state welfare)

I think some of you are going to have to at least half admit at some point that your fears that Chile would fall apart and be a disaster and be taken over by communists were an exaggeration. At this point, the greater disaster will be that inequality will continue indefinitely…

The centre is falling out of Chilean politics just like it has in the US.

This also happened in the UK although Keir Starmer, the new leader of Labour, is making a big push for the centre ground.

Sorry if I´m writing a bit much but you have been spared my very amateur analysis in recent weeks so forgive me this once: this will be my last comment for today.

The left was handed a golden chance to write a left wing constitution that could have been approved and stood for 50 or 100 years, if they´d just written a slightly lefty constitution instead of a very lefty one.

They totally blew it with serious overreach. The best chance they were ever going to get and they got carried away and didn´t think strategically and wrote something that didn´t represent the people of Chile, instead it represented them, the people who wrote it.

The irony of this result is incredibly sweet. A perfect example of be careful what you wish for!