agree with conviction

I have an intuition. I believe that, in the face of electoral pacts, what most penalizes the voter is not the pact itself, but the lack of conviction.

I explain. We all have a preference over the pacts reached by the parties. But how can we not have it? If we have it even between different candidates of the same party…

We know that some voters feel more comfortable with one pact and others with another. We also know that the adversary will use the pact to attribute the worst of one to the other.. However, none of this has a direct electoral consequence..

What really remains —in votes— is that the citizen detects a lack of conviction in the agreement (or disagreement). One can come to admit one or another position if he understands the reasons of the one who leads to take it. You can even trust him by disagreeing with what he does. But to get to the lesser evil, you have to trust the boss. And trust is earned through conviction, letting people know what you really think, declaring when there is a red line and sticking to it. Explaining when there is a transfer and the reason for it.

Let's treat citizens like adults. Because the citizens know that in the current political panorama it is necessary to agree. In fact, it is the result of his own decision. From the will of society. Nobody attributes the responsibility of having to make a pact to the one who has to form a government. It is logical that a candidate is the one who would have wanted an absolute majority the most, but it does not exist and an agreement must be made. Even all citizens understand that in a pact there is a transfer. What they don't understand is being told that something is going to happen and it doesn't happen, or that it isn't going to happen and it happens..

In order to gain someone's trust, even when the situation is uncomfortable, the only condition is to know what we stand for.

For this reason, Guardiola receives more support than Mazón. But not because one has agreed with Vox and the other refuses. But because one has given the impression of having done it out of necessity and the other —it seems— speaks from the beginning.

And if we look at it like this… we will also understand the punishment of Sánchez. Because what Sánchez is really accused of is not that he agreed with United We Can. What is blamed is that one day he could not sleep and another day he was hugging. That he did not care about Rivera or Iglesias. And that is what is reprehensible and what is censored. It is what causes anxiety in people's minds. It is the same feeling as walking into a store and seeing that the prices are not on the products. One can assume that something is expensive or cheap. You can even justify paying a lot for something that isn't worth it—we do it every day in airports. What you cannot feel is that this price is variable according to other circumstances that you do not control. Come on, they are tangando to one.

So now that everyone is compact, my approach would be to tell our leaders to stay calm. That we all understand what is happening. We just need to hear whoever is in charge understands it too, and if he gives in, as long as he knows what and why, he'll be fine. As if in our life we were not constantly giving in to reach agreements..

Politicians, be calm. The responsibility for there not being absolute majorities belongs to the citizens. It is in their hands that the fault of failing to manage them lies with the politicians.