The article analyses the types of majoritariam second ballot systems adopted in Latin America for presidential elections. After classifying the diverse range of run-off ballot system, and rewing the principal contributions made by specialist studies on the topic, the article attempts the effects of this systems over the fragmentation, the polarization and the democracy stability. The article concludes that the electoral formula with absolute majority combined with in coactive party systems is a difficult option for the democratic stability. The second conclusion refers that the systems of special majority (less than 50%) are efficient institutes for the configuration of boards with low fragmentation and low ideological polarization. ; El artículo analiza los distintos tipos de sistemas mayoritarios de doble vuelta adoptados en América Latina para definir la elección presidencial. Luego de clasificar los distintos tipos de sistemas y de pasar revista a las principales contribuciones de los especialistas en la materia, se examinan los efectos que éstos generan sobre la fragmentación partidaria, la polarización ideológica y la estabilidad de la democracia. El artículo concluye con la idea de que los sistemas de elección presidencial por mayoría absoluta combinados con sistemas de partidos incipientes, representan opciones poco favorables para el mantenimiento de la estabilidad democrática. La segunda conclusión refiere a que los sistemas de mayoría especial (inferior a 150%) son institutos eficientes para la configuración de escenarios con baja fragmentación y escasa polarización ideológica.
Almost two years since his election, as Obama's popularity continues to sink, many are left wondering what went wrong with his presidency. But before that question can be answered, a more careful consideration of the situation he inherited seems in order: two unwinnable wars, the Guantánamo legal limbo, a badly damaged international reputation and an economic crisis of a magnitude not seen since the Great Depression, during which close to ten million jobs were lost. That was the state of the country when he came to power in 2008. In two years Obama has not solved any of these problems completely, but has made headway in many of them. In the context of a slow and jobless economic recovery, and faced with a vociferous opposition which has turned down every chance at bipartisan cooperation, the question should perhaps then be how Obama's level of support among the population remains this high (43%).The President still has the backing of Democratic voters, but has lost the support of Independents. Even those who would never consider abandoning him are suffering from an "enthusiasm gap" that may affect their turnout in the November 2 mid-term elections. With unemployment still hovering around 9.5% and with little prospect of change in the near future, the disillusionment of the electorate is understandable (43% support Obama today, compared with 60% in early 2009). But it is worth pondering how much of this discontent against the party in power is derived from the failure of policy and how much from the divisive political game played by the opposition.In all fairness to Obama, shrill accusations of socialism and big government were raised against him as soon as he came to power and had to immediately address the banking, mortgage and automobile meltdowns. Acerbic Republican opposition to any measure adopted by the Executive since then, has dominated the political discourse and made it almost impossible for the Administration to present evidence that, without its actions, the economic recovery would have taken even longer. It is hard to prove a negative proposition. Republicans have had a receptive audience in the low, mostly white middle class, many of who have taken to the streets under the Tea Party banner, to fight in one voice both against government "take over" of health care and (incongruously) in defense of Medicare (the government-sponsored health program for senior citizens).There is rich irony in hearing the word "socialist" hurled as the ultimate insult to a President who has bailed out the big financial institutions and the two largest automobile industries without nationalizing them, and who has signed a health care reform bill that does not include the controversial public option, which had been the centerpiece of his planned reform but was deemed too liberal by members of his own party. But reason and logic have no role to play in the polarized political atmosphere that we are experiencing today. Emotion and fear are much more productive in the views of the opposition, to help them re-take the House and perhaps even the Senate in this fall election.Timid Democrats in the House and Senate, afraid to lose their newly acquired seats in states and districts that voted for McCain in the 2008 presidential election are also abandoning the president. A posse of four or five of Senate "Blue Dog" Democrats has helped dilute the health care legislation by removing the public option from the bill, and have taken off the table legislation to curb carbon emissions and promote green energy sources. There are different hypotheses of why Obama has been unable to maintain high support rates in spite of having had important legislative victories (TARP, Stimulus spending package, extension of unemployment benefits, health care and financial reform). Former (Clinton's) Labor Secretary Robert Reich and NY Times columnist and Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman argue that Obama's stimulus was ridiculously small, given the state of the economy in January 2009. They blame the President for not using the majorities in the House and Senate to pass bolder legislation. By compromising, Obama disappointed the liberal wing of his party, but more importantly, lost the Independents at the center, who simultaneously believed the Republican rhetoric about "Big government Socialist take over" but resented Obama's bailout of Wall Street. Contrary to the fear-mongering claims of the deficit hawks about the debt, Krugman points out that "far from fleeing US debt, investors are eagerly buying it, driving interest rates to historic lows". Reich insists that Obama missed an opportunity to push the limits of politics, establish a new framework of redistributive policies and regulations, and become a transformative president. Although this view undoubtedly has some merit, it ignores the brutal backlash against government spending that affected every Democrat in the House and Senate and made them fear for their jobs. A larger stimulus would have faced even stronger opposition from among the party's own ranks and seen some defectors. Obama is a pragmatic leader who governs as best he can, given the huge constraints of the current political context.Jay Cost from Real Politics offers a different explanation: Obama's geographic coalition was never broad enough because he failed to win the hearts and minds of middle and rural America. It is from those sectors that Independents have abandoned support for the administration in droves. In other words, Obama's major constituencies were in the major cities on the two seaboards and from the suburbs, and included Blacks, youth and university educated white professionals. Even in those cases in which they voted for Obama, white rural America, and blue collar workers never were quite convinced that he would fight for them, and the Wall Street bailout confirmed their suspicion. Underlying it all, there is, of course, the prevalent racism that permeates most sectors of American society and emerges in the form of distrust toward the Commander in Chief: Obama has to prove his loyalty to the country in ways not demanded from others. He has to pay the price of being the first Black president.A third hypothesis that is circulating among pundits is that Obama's focus on health care was misplaced, that he should have concentrated all his attention on economic recovery and job creation instead. Indeed, it was during the 2009 summer of discontent that the electorate became irreconcilably divided and that Republican-launched corrosive ads dominated the airwaves, and rumors about death panels and "pulling the plug on grandma" pervaded City Hall meetings. A general distrust of the federal government and of all incumbents inside the DC belt, while nothing new among the American electorate, re-emerged with new virulence.It is in this context that the Tea Party movement cut its teeth and started dominating the headlines. Spurred by the GOP with the intention of mobilizing the population around anti-tax, anti-federal government sentiments, the Tea-partiers launched national campaigns against all incumbents, and in the process became a voice for the profound anger, fear and frustration that the poor state of the economy and the sustained unemployment rate has caused in the population. Pleased at the frenzy stirred up by the movement, Republicans have complacently let it lead the way, exercising no restraint on their wildest propositions (see below) and allowing it to do the work for them as the voice of the opposition. This is already having unwanted consequences, as extremist Tea-party –fielded candidates from outside party ranks are challenging party insiders in gubernatorial as well as Congressional primary races.Like the eponymous rebellion that took place in Boston in 1773, the Tea Party's main philosophical thrust is against taxes, centralization of power and government overreach. Unlike it, it is also anti-immigrant. Because of the prevalent uncertainty about the economy, their discourse resonates with the electorate. To fight the federal government initiatives, they are finding their best institutional allies in the State governments, courts and legislatures. Indeed, judging by the poisonous political environment, the polarization of the electorate, and the state-based challenges to the federal government, at times it seems that only a Lincolnian figure can save America from another civil war.The so- called "States Revolution" is visible in many fronts. Five states have passed legislation against parts of the federal health reform law, and around 20 states are challenging its constitutionality through the court system. Several states legislatures are getting ready to pass laws modeled after the anti-immigration law in Arizona, which was deemed unconstitutional by a district court but has broad support in the population. It will probably end up in the Supreme Court, as challenges and counter-challenges continue. Interestingly, Obama is in fact deporting more undocumented workers than any of his predecessors, but his reform proposal would give a pathway to citizenship to these workers if they have a job, register with the US government, and pay a fine and back taxes. Immigration has been a thorny issue, with allies and foes on both sides of the aisle. After all, it was Ronald Reagan who gave amnesty to all illegal immigrants in 1986, and George Bush's proposal in 2006 was very similar to Obama's. This is hardly a philosophical issue on which the two parties diverge; it is just a populist cause that is being used by Republicans to stoke the flames of right-wing populism and racism prevalent in main sectors of the population.The backlash against undocumented workers is of such magnitude that it has come to encompass all immigrants. It has now taken the unlikely form of a movement to abolish or amend the 14th Amendment, a foundational provision dating from 1868 which grants citizenship to all born in the United States. The changing of the birth right rule is "worth considering" according to House Minority leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) because "it gives an incentive for people to come to the United States illegally to give birth here." This is outrageous pandering by the Republican Party who has always fathomed itself to be the staunchest defender of the Constitution, which they consider a sacred text to be read literally, with minimal interpretation. Such is the spirit of the times. Republican Senators Lindsay Graham and John McCain, the two most important and moderate voices on Immigration Reform have changed their positions (Mc Cain because he is facing a tough primary in his state of Arizona, against, who other, but a Tea Party candidate!) and have both agreed that it is worth a debate. This is not only unprincipled on their part, but also terrible long-term politics, since by taking this stance on immigration they are removing the possibility of regaining the support of the largest growing group of voters, namely the Hispanic or Latino population for years to come.Given the strong anti-incumbent and anti-Washington sentiment prevalent in the population, the results of the mid-term election are hard to predict because some Republicans may lose seats, too. However, the current projections of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia give the Republicans a net win of 32 seats in the House, 7 seats in the Senate (they would need 10 to become the majority) and 6-7 governor seats. The coming mid-term election is being compared to the 1994 "revolution" led by Newt Gingrich which gave Republicans a majority in both the House and Senate. Just like Obama, Clinton was an "outsider" who was handed the presidency partly thanks to his charisma, but mainly because people were disappointed at George Bush Senior, and did not re-elect him. Clinton made health care reform the centerpiece of his first term but failed to get it through Congress. He did manage to pass a controversial crime bill that included a ban on assault weapons, which the Right traditionally opposes. He also raised taxes. Republicans attacked him with an abrasive campaign in favor of lower taxes, second amendment rights and smaller government, and won. Two years later, however, with a brighter economic outlook and a pledge to balance the budget, Clinton was re-elected.But the parallel should not be exaggerated since there are many differences as well. First, Obama did pass health care reform, and that should count have some weight among his supporters, hopefully enough weight to bring them to the polls November 2. Second, the Republican Party's image was not as tarnished in 1994 as it is today, mainly because they hadn't had a majority in Congress for a long time. A New York Times/CBS News poll this past February found that 57% of those polled has negative views of the Republicans this time. The anger is aimed at Washington as a whole and this may help Democrats. The main concern of Democrats in the House and Senate today is the demographics of mid-term elections: older (over 60) white voters, who are the core group of the Tea Party movement and the most outspoken against Obama and this Congress, are also the most likely to vote in mid-term elections. And the "enthusiasm gap" on the Left may induce many Obama supporters to stay home. On the other hand, the Democratic Party learned the lesson of 1994 and is better prepared for the fight: they have been raising money from early on, setting up voters' registration campaigns and trying to mobilize the same base that brought Obama to power two years ago. They stress his activist legislative agenda and its accomplishments: financial reform, health care, extension of unemployment benefits, an energy bill that came short of cap and trade but will meet some green energy goals. More importantly, they are framing the election as a choice between going back to the policies that got the country into the Great Recession, or moving forward with the new policies of corporate responsibility, accountability and more federal supervision of financial institutions in order to avoid similar crises.However, what is clear is that the anemic state of the economy and the high and sustained unemployment rate make all other tactics irrelevant. Uncertainty rules supreme in the minds of the electorate and with it, a fear of what the future may bring and a lack of confidence in the federal government. The Republican opposition is united and vociferous and its message simple and clear: no more taxes, no more deficits, no more government intervention, close borders to immigrants and focus on private job creation through tax cuts; what the federal government won't do, states will. The President should probably counterattack in kind and engage in this ideological battle, but he is not temperamentally suited for it. He dislikes ideological arguments because he wants to be the President of all Americans, as he pledged during his campaign. The next big decision Obama needs to make is whether to let the Bush tax cuts expire after Labor Day or to extend them for two or three years. He has announced his intention to maintain them for the middle class but to end them for the wealthiest individuals, those in the highest 2% income bracket. It would bring their income tax up from 35% to 39%, not a dramatic raise but one that will be resisted strongly by the opposition. Although Obama has a good argument to make (that the $700 billion dollars thus raised would help him reduce the deficit dramatically), there is fear in Congress Democrats that a two- week debate about tax cuts will help Republicans. In a perversely cynical way, perhaps a Republican win in the congressional elections may not be a bad thing after all, and may yet help Obama: let the Republicans make his case for him, that he himself is reluctant to make. Let them stand the public scrutiny and let the public judge if they can provide better, more novel solutions to job creation, to Afghanistan, to immigration reform. A weak performance by a Republican-dominated 112th Congress, an economy that is bound to recover as it enters its next cycle, and a Palin-Huckabee ticket may still get Obama re-elected in 2012.Senior Lecturer, Department of Political Science and Geography Director, ODU Model United Nations Program Old Dominion University, Norfolk, Virginia
Objective: a general look at youth and politics in Mexico, speeches, information, and figures, and specifically around the elections (2018). Methodology: diverse information and data from a survey in Mexico City are reviewed. Results: there is a certain distance between youth and formal politics according to studies for the country conducted in recent times, as well as an adult discourse that makes these youth responsible for their electoral attitude. In 2018 the youth vote was for Morena and studied expressions present a more participatory and interested youth than previously thought. The findings of this work show a youth with an interest in politics similar to other age groups, with greater knowledge, and with a political culture and public opinion similar to citizenship as a whole. ; Objetivo: realizar una mirada general hacia las juventudes y la política en México, sus discursos, información y cifras, y todo en torno a las elecciones de 2018. Metodología: Se realiza una revisión de fuentes y documentos de diversa índole; desde informes de gobierno y de organismos civiles, hasta encuestas publicadas. También se hace una revisión de prensa pormenorizada, la cual muestra en general el panorama de la participación política juvenil del país y en el momento de las elecciones del 1° de julio de 2018 de manera particular. Para el tema de la cultura política y participación electoral en concreto en el año 2018, se revisa la información de una encuesta preelectoral y de cultura política realizada por un grupo de profesores de la Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana, unidad Xochimilco (UAM/X) al sur de la Ciudad de México (CDMX) con la colaboración de un grupo de alumnos/as en el mes de junio del año 2018 en la CDMX. Resultado: se observa cierto distanciamiento entre juventudes y política formal según estudios para el país en los últimos tiempos, así como un discurso adulto que los responsabiliza de su actitud electoral. En 2018 su voto fue para Morena y las expresiones estudiadas presentan una juventud más participativa e interesada de lo que se pensaba. Conclusión: Los hallazgos de este trabajo muestran a una juventud con interés hacia la política, similar a otros grupos de edad, con conocimiento mayor, con una cultura política y opinión pública parecida a la ciudadanía en su conjunto.
Political parties and their candidates use social networks as a new tool for political communication and so the media have also begun to use them in the same context. This article focuses on the analysis of the posts made by the news media on Twitter (tweets) during the week following Mexico's 2018 elections, based on the informative, secondary and protagonist roles proposed by Vallés (2007), and on the reactions these posts generated on citizens. Content analysis has been performed on a sample of 525 tweets posted by 18 Mexican and international news media organizations. The results show that the three roles that traditional media publications play, according to Vallés (2007), can be extrapolated to the posts they make on Twitter, and that there are differences in the performance of these functions across news media outlets. The main innovation in the use of Twitter by news media is associated to citizens' feedback (retweets and mentions), which has allowed us to determine that the "protagonist" role is the most commonly played within the political context under study.
El objetivo de este artículo es analizar la normativa institucional y la dinámica política de la provincia de Tucumán (Argentina) durante la década de 1870, en el marco de las tensiones derivadas de la conformación del Estado argentino. El artículo está centrado en el análisis de las prácticas electorales de los clubes y comités de la provincia de Tucumán y sus relaciones "hacia abajo" con los sectores populares, lo que no implica desconocer el rol central que desempeñó el Estado provincial y nacional, no sólo como productor de la normativa electoral, sino también como actor que participaba activamente en las elecciones. Otro aspecto del trabajo explora el funcionamiento de los clubes y comités y sus relaciones con los sectores populares, que generalmente se verificaron de arriba hacia abajo, a través de intermediarios (capataces, jueces y comisarios de campaña), en una relación que la historiografía política ha calificado como pasiva y cuyo principal propósito era mejorar la eficacia de las redes clientelares construidas. Estos aspectos nos permiten apreciar cómo en 1870 la incorporación de la dirigencia de la provincia de Tucumán a un orden político nacional permitió configurar una dinámica de estabilidad institucional, fundada en el respeto de las normas constitucionales que constituyeron la fuente principal de legitimidad del sistema. ; The objective of this study is to analyze the institutional normativity and political dynamics of the province of Tucumán (Argentina) during the decade of 1870, in the context of the tensions derived from the conformation of the Argentine State. This study in the field of political history is centered in the analysis of the electoral practices of clubs and committees in the province of Tucumán and their "condescending" relations with working class sectors; without ignoring the central role achieved by the provincial and national State as producer of electoral normativity, as well as a principal actor in the elections. Another aspect of the work involves exploring the functioning of the clubs and committees and their relation with working class sectors, which were generally verified from a "top to bottom" perspective, through intermediaries (overseers, judges and campaign managers) in a relationship that political historiography has identified as passive, and whose principal goal was improving the efficacy of previously constructed networks of patronage. These elements allow an appreciation of the way in which in 1870, the incoporation of the leadership of the province of Tucuman into the national political order allowed for the configuration of a dynamic of institutional stability, founded on respect for constitutional norms that constituted the system´s main source of legitimacy. ; L'objectif de cet article est d'analyser les normes et les processus politiques de la province de Tucumán (Argentine) pendant la décennie 1870, dans le cadre des tensions découlant de la conformation de l'État argentin. L'article est axé sur l'analyse des pratiques électorales des clubs et des comités de la province de Tucumán, ainsi que sur les relations que ceux-ci entretenaient avec les secteurs populaires, ce qui n'implique pas la méconnaissance du rôle central qui a joué l'État provincial et national, non seulement comme producteur des règlements électoraux, mais aussi comme acteur dynamique des élections. Un autre aspect du travail consiste à explorer le fonctionnement des clubs et des comités et leurs relations avec les secteurs populaires à travers des intermédiaires (contremaîtres, juges et commissaires de campagne), dans une relation qualifié par l'historiographie politique comme passive et dont le principal objectif était d'améliorer l'efficacité des réseaux clientélaires. Ces aspects nous permettent d'apprécier comment l'intégration des dirigeants de la province de Tucumán à l'ordre politique national en 1870, a permis un équilibre institutionnel, fondé sur le respect des normes constitutionnelles qui constituaient la principale source de légitimité du système. ; Fil: Bravo, Maria Celia. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Tucumán. Instituto Superior de Estudios Sociales. Universidad Nacional de Tucumán. Instituto Superior de Estudios Sociales; Argentina
ABSTRACT Dawn of March 19, 2003, the coalition forces ended the dictatorial regime that had lingered for more than 30 years, liberating Iraqis and help them make the shift to a democratic system. Nevertheless, religious groups and parties supported by neighboring countries managed to seize power in a very short period. They succeeded in manipulating the electoral system and deform the applied Saint – Lego system in a way that serves their political agenda. RESUMEN Al amanecer del 19 de marzo de 2003, las fuerzas de la coalición acabaron con el régimen dictatorial que había durado más de 30 años, liberando a los iraquíes y ayudándoles a dar el paso al sistema democrático. Sin embargo, grupos y partidos religiosos apoyados por países vecinos lograron tomar el poder en un período muy corto. Lograron manipular el sistema electoral y deformar el sistema Saint-Lego aplicado de una manera que sirva a su agenda política.
Las elecciones americanas se revelan como lo que son -o sea como un auténtico género teatral- cuando abandonamos una concepción estrictamente profesional del teatro y la reemplazamos por la que es capaz de descubrir lo teatral allí donde haya escena, argumento, público, actores, puesta en escena y una autoridad que permite el acontecimiento teatral rigiéndolo desde una distancia que hace posible la autonomía y al límite de la rebeldía de la autoría, la actuación y la expectación. ; SIN FINANCIACIÓN ; No data (2008)
This essay intends to take stock of the performance of the presidential elections polls of 2018. In a first section, the relevant sources of information that account for the phenomenon are defined. In a second section the theoretical concepts are reviewed on how the accuracy of the electoral surveys should be measured. In a third section the defects of measurements that do not conform to the orthodox procedures of the field are discovered, with a view to deepen, in the following point, in the performance obtained by the polls on the occasion of the presidential elections of 2018, although leaving in a latter section some aspects that revealed still problematic aspects to explain. Finally, the performance achieved in this year is evaluated in comparison with that observed in other occasions.
This study examines the campaign websites of presidential candidates during the 2007 election in France and the 2008 presidential campaign in the U.S. Positing the Internet and social networks as a manifestation of popular culture, it examines the reasons for the use of information technology in electoral campaigns. It also attempts to elucidate the reasons for the adoption of the codes of popular culture by exploring the concept of informalization as well as the significance of emotion in online campaign strategies.
In a globalized world integration processes are taking more and more strength, which implies greater democratic participation in political and social actors, a situation that is not yet evident in the Andean integration process and aims achieved through the consolidation of elections direct and universal Andean Parliament.The Andean Parliament is called to become the backbone of South American integration process. Therefore, it is essential that the member countries of the Andean Community (CAN), support through the direct election of their representatives to consolidate and legitimate representative organ of the Andean citizens in the supranational context. ; En un mundo globalizado los procesos de integración vienen tomando cada día más fuerza; lo que implica mayor participación democrática de los actores políticos y sociales, situación que todavía no se evidencia en el Proceso de Integración Andino y que aspira lograrse mediante la consolidación de las elecciones directas y universales de parlamentarios andinos.El Parlamento Andino está llamado a convertirse en la columna vertebral del proceso de integración en suramericana. Por lo tanto, es indispensable que los países miembros de la Comunidad Andina (CAN), respalden mediante la elección directa, la consolidación y legitimación del órgano representante de los ciudadanos andinos en el contexto supranacional
Presidential system provides the president with great and independent power, which generates a lack of coordination between the Executive and Legislative branches. ; El sistema presidencial provee al presidente gran poder independiente lo que genera falta de coordinación entre el ejecutivo y el legislativo.
The present work aims to describe electoral rules and the application of gender parity in Bolivia and its effectiveness in access to representation. For this, the elections of october 18, 2020 and their electoral results and the political participation of women in the Asamblea Legislativa Plurinacional are analyzed. ; El presente trabajo tiene como objetivo describir las reglas electorales y la aplicación de la paridad de género en Bolivia y su eficacia en el acceso a la representación. Para ello se analizan las elecciones del 18 de octubre de 2020 y sus resultados electorales y en la participación política de las mujeres en la Asamblea Legislativa Plurinacional.
The process of citizen participation in the election of their representatives in Central America begins with the celebration of the Courts of Cadiz in Spain. Since then the road has been hard on all countries in the region, each with its own peculiarities, but all very similar advances and setbacks.The historical review of the strengthening of democracy in Central America is the focus of this essay which begins precisely with the call for the election of representatives to the Courts of Cadiz in 1810, until the electoral reforms generated by the constitutional court and begun the Century XXI.In this paper the electoral experiences of the nineteenth century are examined and the struggles between liberals and conservatives, to result in the 20th century where the demands for universal suffrage and the vote for women precede armed guerrilla movements fighting against rebels military dictatorships, in the context of the Cold War and the USA / USSR confrontation.Realidad y Reflexión Año 14, N° 40, 2014 ; El proceso de participación ciudadana en la elección de sus representantes inicia en América Central con la celebración de las Cortes de Cádiz en España. Desde entonces el camino ha sido arduo en todos los países de la región, cada uno con sus particularidades, pero todos con avances y retrocesos muy parecidos.El repaso histórico del fortalecimiento de la democracia en Centroamérica es el eje central del presente ensayo, que inicia precisamente con la convocatoria para la elección de representantes ante las Cortes de Cádiz en 1810, hasta las reformas electorales generadas mediante la jurisdicción constitucional y ya iniciado el Siglo XXI.En este trabajo se examinan las experiencias electorales del siglo XIX y las luchas entre liberales y conservadores, para desembocar en un siglo XX donde las reivindicaciones por el sufragio universal y el voto de las mujeres preceden a la lucha armada de los movimientos guerrilleros alzados contra las dictaduras militares, en el contexto de la Guerra Fría y la confrontación USA/URSS.Realidad y Reflexión Año 14, N° 40, 2014
