SEARCH RESULTS

A scientific study identified that tennis showed the strongest statistical association with estimated life expectancy gain among the sports analyzed. However, this association should be interpreted in light of the methodological limitations highlighted by the researchers themselves. Among the various benefits traditionally attributed to regular physical activity, few results have aroused as much curiosity as those presented in the study " Various Leisure-Time Physical Activities Associated With Widely Divergent Life Expectancies: The Copenhagen City Heart Study," published in 2018 in the journal Mayo Clinic Proceedings and conducted by Peter Schnohr and his team of researchers. This is a prospective population study based on detailed questionnaires about participation in different sports and leisure physical activities. The research used data from 8,577 participants in the Copenhagen City Heart Study , a long-term epidemiological study conducted in Denmark. In the analysis published in 2018 , these participants were followed for up to 25 years . Researchers assessed the association between sports participation and all-cause mortality using data collected during examinations conducted in the Copenhagen City Heart Study between October 10, 1991 , and September 16, 1994. The mortality of these participants was then followed up until March 22, 2017 . The analysis revealed a result that surprised even the researchers themselves: among the sports evaluated, tennis showed the strongest statistical association with the greatest estimated increase in life expectancy. Tennis appeared in first place. When comparing people who practiced different sports with sedentary individuals, researchers found the following association between each sport and the estimated increase in life expectancy: Modality Estimated gain in life expectancy* Tennis 9.7 years Badminton 6.2 years Soccer 4.7 years Cycling 3.7 years Swimming 3.4 years Race 3.2 years Gymnastics 3.1 years Academy 1.5 years *Estimates obtained in comparison with sedentary individuals. The result was noteworthy because tennis outperformed sports traditionally associated with cardiovascular conditioning, such as running, cycling, and swimming . Despite the striking results, the authors themselves made a fundamental caveat. The research was an observational study , in which researchers followed participants over time and analyzed the association between their lifestyle habits and all-cause mortality. Although the research used information obtained from clinical examinations and questionnaires from the Copenhagen City Heart Study, the sporting activity was identified through self-reporting, tracking the association between physical activity during leisure time and all-cause mortality. Therefore, its results indicate statistical associations, but do not allow us to conclude that playing tennis is, by itself, the cause of the longer lifespan observed. But what could explain this result? Although the study does not establish a causal relationship, the researchers presented possible explanations for the observed association. The comparison with the sedentary group served as a reference to estimate life expectancy associated with different sports. The main finding of the study was that this association varied significantly among the sports analyzed . Among them, tennis showed the strongest statistical association with the estimated increase in life expectancy. However, this result should be interpreted with caution, as other factors, such as diet, socioeconomic conditions, access to health services, educational level, lifestyle habits, and individual characteristics, may also have influenced this association. This distinction between statistical association and causality is one of the foundations of scientific methodology, especially in the interpretation of observational studies, and should be considered whenever their results are disseminated to the public. Why tennis in particular? The researchers themselves sought to understand this result, but made it clear that the study was not designed to identify its causes. One of the hypotheses presented is that certain sports combine the benefits of physical activity with intense social interaction. Among those that showed the greatest estimated gains in life expectancy are precisely sports practiced with partners or teams, such as tennis, badminton, and soccer. According to the authors, frequent interaction, the building of social relationships, and the strengthening of interpersonal bonds can represent additional health benefits, beyond those provided by physical exercise. A new study that used data from the 2018 survey. The 2018 study did not conclude this line of investigation. In 2021, part of the same research team published a new paper again using data from the Copenhagen City Heart Study . This time, the objective was to investigate how the weekly duration of practice in different sports was associated with all-cause mortality, seeking to understand if there was a quantity of exercise related to the lower risks observed. Researchers observed that the relationship between practice time and mortality was not linear. In several sports, both insufficient practice and excessive training were associated with less favorable outcomes, suggesting that there is an intermediate range of practice that is potentially more beneficial. This second study can be seen as a natural evolution of the research initiated earlier. The first study essentially asked, "Which sport is associated with the highest life expectancy?" , while the second explored "How does the weekly duration of practice in these sports relate to mortality?" What do these studies really teach us? Perhaps the main contribution of this research is not to establish a "definitive ranking" among sports. The results reinforce the idea that regular physical activity is associated with better health indicators and life expectancy, while also suggesting that social factors may play an important role in this process. Tennis showed the strongest statistical association with the estimated increase in life expectancy among the sports evaluated. However, the observational design of the research does not allow us to determine how much of this association can be attributed to playing tennis and how much may result from other factors. In science, significant discoveries often raise new questions. And that's exactly what happened: instead of ending the debate, the results stimulated new investigations into how physical exercise, social interaction, and lifestyle can work together to promote health. In 2024 , six years after the Danish study, a new international research project entitled Sport and Longevity: An Observational Study of International Athletes significantly expanded the scope of the study, gathering data from 95,210 former athletes from 183 countries and 44 sports. The results again indicated a positive association between racket sports — such as tennis and badminton — and longer lifespan . Unlike the research published in 2018, however, tennis did not occupy the first position among the sports evaluated, although it remained among those associated with the most favorable results. Tennis and badminton showed a consistent and positive association in both male and female athletes, as evidenced by a longevity of up to 5.7 years in men and 2.8 years in women. This finding reinforces that this line of research continues to evolve and still requires further studies to clarify the factors responsible for the observed differences between sports. Although the 2024 study did not produce conclusive evidence about the causes of this association, the authors formulated a hypothesis to explain the results. According to them, modalities that combine aerobic and anaerobic characteristics — the so-called " mixed sports " — could provide greater benefits throughout life. According to this hypothesis, mixed sports require, in a balanced way, cardiovascular endurance, muscular explosion, power, speed, frequent changes in intensity, and a high degree of motor coordination. A hard-fought point between Learner Tien and Daniil Medvedev - Australian Open 2025 Tennis is a classic example of this type of activity. During a match, the athlete alternates between rapid movements, accelerations and decelerations, short periods of intense effort, brief recovery intervals, and maintaining physical activity for long periods. This combination recruits different physiological systems in an integrated way, unlike predominantly aerobic modalities, such as long-distance running , or predominantly anaerobic modalities , such as weightlifting. Although currently available evidence points to an association between certain sports and a longer life expectancy, science is still trying to understand which factors actually explain this phenomenon. The observed results for tennis sparked international interest and contributed to broadening the scientific debate and journalistic coverage of the relationship between sports practice, health, and life expectancy. New studies will be essential to confirm, refine, or even revise the hypotheses currently proposed, contributing to a broader understanding of how different sports practices can promote a longer and healthier life. By Luiz Cincurá Founder and Editor High-TechSociety.com Editorial transparency: This article was produced with the support of ChatGPT during the research and preliminary content organization stages. The definition of the editorial approach, critical analysis, technical review, and final writing were carried out by the Editor, who is ultimately responsible for the published content. Sources: ALTULEA A; RUTTEN MGS; VERDIJK LB; DEMARIA M. Sport and longevity: an observational study of international athletes. Geroscience. 2025 Apr;47(2):1397-1409. doi: 10.1007/s11357-024-01307-9. Epub 2024 Aug 12. PMID: 39129051; PMCID: PMC11979035. SCHNOHR, Peter; O'KEEFE, James H.; HOLTERMANN, Andreas; LAVIE, Carl; LANGE, Peter; JENSEN, Gorm Boje and MAROTT, Jacob Louis. Various Leisure-Time Physical Activities Associated With Widely Divergent Life Expectancies: The Copenhagen City Heart Study. Mayo Clinic Proceedings, vol. 93, no. 12, p. 1775–1785, 2018. DOI: 10.1016/j.mayocp.2018.06.025. SCHNOHR P, O'KEEFE JH, LAVIE CJ, HOLTERMANN A, LANGE P, JENSEN GB, MAROTT JL. U-Shaped Association Between Duration of Sports Activities and Mortality: Copenhagen City Heart Study. Mayo Clin Proc. 2021 Dec;96(12):3012-3020. doi: 10.1016/j.mayocp.2021.05.028. Epub 2021 Aug 17. PMID: 34412854. SCHNOHR P; O'KEEFE JH; MAROTT JL; LANGE P; Jensen GB. Dose of jogging and long-term mortality: the Copenhagen City Heart Study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015 Feb 10;65(5):411-9. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2014.11.023. PMID: 25660917.

How to balance the electoral contest when one of the candidates already holds the office and is seeking reelection? A High-Tech Society Series Each democracy develops its own mechanisms to address challenges related to the exercise of power and the functioning of the electoral process. The Democracies Around the World series invites the reader to learn how different countries seek to answer these questions. By following this trajectory, knowledge is broadened about different democratic experiences and how they contribute to the continuous improvement of institutions. In the previous article, the series analyzed the Mexican model, which prevents presidential reelection and seeks to ensure the periodic renewal of the head of the Executive Branch. Now, the focus shifts to a different, but equally relevant, question: how to preserve equality between candidates when an elected official is running for reelection to the same office? Democracy in Ecuador In electoral contests, where an elected official seeks reelection to the same office, candidates competing under different conditions face off. In certain public functions, especially those within the Executive Branch, the officeholder participates daily in official acts, announces public policies, and maintains constant contact with the state structure—circumstances that can generate significant competitive asymmetry. To reduce this type of asymmetry, various legal mechanisms can be adopted during the election period. Restrictions on institutional advertising, the use of public resources, the inauguration of public works, and other forms of state action are examples of measures aimed at preserving equality in the contest. Ecuador chose to go further. The Ecuadorian legislature decided to add an additional measure. In addition to preserving the traditional mechanisms for controlling the public administration, starting in 2020 it began requiring officials running for immediate reelection to temporarily step down from their posts during the official election campaign period. This asymmetry is particularly evident when one of the candidates holds the position of head of the Executive Branch. However, the Ecuadorian legislature opted to adopt a broader solution, applicable to elected officials seeking reelection to the same office. From optional leave to mandatory leave. Until 2020, stepping down from office was optional ; the decision to step down was a choice made by the elected official seeking reelection. If they chose to step down, they were granted unpaid leave . On the other hand, remaining in office meant continuing in power and maintaining the salary. In the 2013 elections, when leave of absence was still optional, then-President Rafael Correa remained in office for the first 14 days of the official campaign, and his unpaid leave began on the 15th day of the campaign. At that time, the leave of absence was the sole decision of the president, and there was no requirement regarding when it should begin. The 2020 reform altered this model, mandating leave of absence from the first day of the election campaign. It is important to clarify that, in Ecuador, mandatory leave is not limited to the President of the Republic or other holders of executive branch positions. The rule applies to all authorities elected by popular vote who are running for immediate reelection to the same office , including the Vice-President, National Deputies, Provincial Governors, Mayors, and other elected officials. The duration of the leave of absence fully coincides with the official election campaign period, as defined by the National Electoral Council . Although this period varies according to each election, recent presidential campaigns have been relatively short: 45 days in 2013, 45 days in 2017, and 35 days in 2021. The requirement is stated in article 93 of the Code of Democracy (Organic Law on Electoral Matters and Political Organizations of the Republic of Ecuador): "Popular election dignitaries who opt for immediate reelection in the same position will be able to use a license without remuneration from the beginning of the electoral campaign.” (Officials elected by popular vote who opt for immediate reelection to the same office must take unpaid leave from the start of the election campaign). A more direct solution The change adopted by Ecuador stems from a simple logic. Instead of relying exclusively on the subsequent monitoring of numerous potentially irregular behaviors, the legislation proactively reduces an important source of electoral asymmetry: the simultaneous exercise of the functions inherent to public office and the status of candidate for reelection. Temporary leave of absence does not eliminate all existing asymmetries between candidates, but it objectively reduces the direct influence resulting from the daily exercise of public office during the campaign. This characteristic makes mandatory licensing a preventive measure, whose compliance is objectively verifiable. Removal from office does not replace other controls. During the election period, even though the candidate seeking reelection has already been removed from office and is temporarily detached from public functions, other prohibitions remain in effect to preserve the neutrality of public administration and prevent the use of state resources to benefit candidates. During this period, state bodies and institutions are prohibited from disseminating institutional advertising or propaganda through radio, television, digital media, print media, printed materials, billboards, or other means of communication. The legislation only allows communications of public interest that are expressly justified, such as information about road closures or changes and construction work, guidance in emergency or disaster situations, and campaigns related to prevention, vaccination, public health, the functioning of school activities, and public safety. It is also prohibited to display, in audiovisual content produced with public funds, the image, voice, or name of individuals registered as candidates. Therefore, during the electoral process, institutional state communication cannot be used to promote or reinforce the association of the authority removed from office with institutional actions. This combination reveals an important aspect of the Ecuadorian model. The temporary removal aims to reduce the institutional advantage derived from the official's presence in the daily exercise of their duties, while the other restrictions continue to protect the neutrality of the public administration during the electoral process. In other words, these are complementary mechanisms, not mutually exclusive ones. The rationale for the reform The documentation produced during the electoral reform itself clarifies the purpose of the change. Ecuador's National Electoral Council identified that candidates seeking reelection were competing in elections under different conditions than those faced by other candidates. For this reason, he proposed that the license should no longer be optional but mandatory, reinforcing the goal of promoting greater equality among candidates. The change was subsequently incorporated into the Code of Democracy by the National Assembly, where it remains in effect. High-Tech Society – Analysis The Ecuadorian experience demonstrates that the debate on equality in electoral competition can be addressed through different legislative techniques. Instead of relying exclusively on monitoring conduct during the campaign, Ecuador added a preventive measure: the temporary removal from office of officials seeking reelection to the same position. The temporary removal of officials running for immediate reelection did not replace the traditional mechanisms for controlling the use of public resources, institutional advertising, and state funds. On the contrary, it became part of this set of measures, preventing the simultaneous exercise of the duties of public office and the status of candidate for reelection during the official campaign period. The democratic mechanisms adopted by Ecuador to promote greater balance in electoral competition demonstrate that strengthening democratic institutions requires ongoing evaluation and the capacity for improvement, in light of experience. The evolution of Ecuadorian legislation shows that democracies can continuously improve their institutional models in response to the challenges identified in the application of their norms. By Luiz Cincurá Founder and Editor High-TechSociety.com Editorial transparency: This article was produced with the support of ChatGPT during the research and preliminary content organization stages. The definition of the editorial approach, critical analysis, technical review, and final writing were carried out by the Editor, who is ultimately responsible for the published content. Sources: ECUADOR. Constitution of the Republic of Ecuador, 2008. Constituent Assembly. ECUADOR . Ley Orgánica Electoral y de Organizaciones Políticas de la República del Ecuador – Code of Democracy . National Electoral Council (CNE). ECUADOR . Ley Reformatoria al Code of Democracy , Official Registry, 3 Feb. 2020. NATIONAL ELECTORAL COUNCIL (CNE). 2021 general election calendar. NATIONAL ELECTORAL COUNCIL (CNE). Calendar of the 2013 general elections. NATIONAL ASAMBLEA OF ECUADOR . The Asamblea grants a license to President Rafael Correa to participate in the electoral campaign (2013) . NATIONAL ASAMBLEA OF ECUADOR. The National Assembly applies article 93 of the Code of Democracy to representatives who are nominated for re-election (2025). NATIONAL ASAMBLEA OF ECUADOR. Legislative processing of the reform of article 93 of the Code of Democracy.

Is simply changing the leadership enough when the same party remains in power for decades? A series from High-TechSociety The "Democracies Around the World" series analyzes how different democracies seek to develop mechanisms designed to preserve the balance of the democratic system in the face of various challenges. In addition to creating the necessary conditions for the people to choose their rulers, each country develops, among other mechanisms, instruments designed to limit the concentration of power, preserve equality in political competition, and prevent individuals or groups from becoming indistinguishable from the State itself. In the previous article, High-TechSociety presented the United States' decision to constitutionally limit the number of times the same person can be elected President. The American experience sought to ensure the periodic renewal of the occupant of the Presidency. But does this solution completely solve the problem of the prolonged concentration of power? Mexican experience demonstrates otherwise. The prohibition of presidential reelection eliminated the prolonged tenure of the same person in the Presidency, but it did not prevent the concentration of power from manifesting itself in other ways. For approximately 71 years , Mexico successively replaced its Presidents, prohibited any presidential reelection, and yet the same party remained in control of the federal government. This inevitably leads to the question: If the periodic renewal of the person occupying the Presidency does not, in itself, prevent the prolonged concentration of power, what else would be necessary to preserve democratic alternation? The case of Mexico takes this reflection to a new level. The ban on presidential reelection In Mexico, the President cannot be re-elected. They serve a single six-year term and, after taking office, cannot return to the position. This prohibition extends even to those who have served as interim or substitute presidents, solidifying it as one of the most striking characteristics of the Mexican Constitution. The ban on presidential reelection is set forth in Article 83 of the 1917 Political Constitution of the United Mexican States, which is currently in force, although it has been amended by successive constitutional reforms. The original text already prohibited presidential reelection, but the ban was relaxed by amendments enacted in 1927 and 1928. The absolute prohibition was reinstated by the constitutional amendment of 1933 and remains in effect. This limitation, however, only applies to the incumbent President. There is no equivalent rule for political parties. Despite the strict prohibition on presidential reelection, the same party group remained in control of the Executive Branch for approximately 71 years. This constitutional option did not arise by chance. It was built upon a historical experience that led the country to associate the prolonged tenure of the same person in the Presidency with the risk of excessive concentration of power. The main protagonist of this experience was President Porfirio Díaz , whose long tenure in office profoundly marked Mexican political history. Porfirio Díaz remained at the center of Mexican political power for approximately three decades . He directly held the Presidency between 1876 and 1880 and, after a four-year interval, returned to the office in 1884 , remaining there until 1911. During the Presidency of Manuel González , between 1880 and 1884 , Díaz continued to exert strong political influence, although he did not formally hold the office. This period, known as the Porfiriato , was marked by economic growth, expansion of railways, infrastructure development, attraction of foreign investment, and modernization of sectors of public administration. Over time, however, Díaz's prolonged rule was accompanied by the concentration of power , reduced electoral competition, weakening of the opposition , and restrictions on political freedoms . Porfirio Díaz's prolonged stay in the Presidency gradually aroused growing political opposition. This discontent culminated in 1910 with the publication of the Plan of San Luis Potosí by Francisco I. Madero , a document that denounced electoral fraud, declared the elections null and void, rejected Díaz's continued presidency, and called on Mexicans to take up arms on November 20 of that year. This call marked the beginning of the Mexican Revolution , a period in which the expression "effective suffrage, no reelection" became a reference to the country's constitutional organization. After about six months of conflict , Porfirio Díaz resigned from the Presidency in May 1911 and left the country. This experience contributed to the non-reelection becoming one of the most striking characteristics of the Mexican constitutional organization after the Revolution. As previously mentioned, Mexico has adopted a complete ban on reelection , which makes its model different from the American one , which allows two presidential elections . The rule ensures the election of a new President at the end of each term. However, it does not require the replacement of the governing political party. The renewal of the people and the continuity of the party. In 1929 , the National Revolutionary Party (PNR) was created. The organization changed its name to the Party of the Mexican Revolution (PRM) in 1938 and, in 1946 , adopted the name Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) , a name it retains to this day. Despite the name changes and reorganization over time, the party preserved its political continuity and remained in control of the Mexican Executive Branch for most of the 20th century. Although the Presidents were replaced every six years and none of them could be re-elected, the PRI remained in power, nominated a new presidential candidate, and retained control of the federal government. The renewal of the occupant of the Presidency does not necessarily represent a complete alternation of power , since there may be a change in the person governing and, at the same time, continuity of the political group and the network of influence that a party, by remaining in power for a long period, can build with the institutions of the State. A dominant party in uncompetitive elections. For much of the period between 1929 and 2000 , the PRI was not only the party with the most votes. It occupied a dominant position within a system in which the opposition participated in elections, but faced very unequal conditions to effectively contest power. In this context, it would be inaccurate to describe this entire continuous period of partisan victories as a fully competitive democracy. According to Crespo (2001) , the PRI occupied the position of hegemonic party for decades. The opposition was legally admitted, but participated in an electoral competition marked by very unequal conditions, which made it difficult to defeat the ruling party. The party's long-standing presence, therefore, cannot be explained solely by the repeated and unanimous preference of the electorate. It was also associated with the concentration of political resources, institutional control, weak electoral competition, and the close relationship between the party structure and the state administration. Democratic risk does not simply stem from a party winning many elections. It stems from the possibility that its prolonged dominance alters the very conditions of the contest, making it difficult for other political forces to have real opportunities to reach government. When the party and the state become too close. Although a political party is not a physical person and can renew its leaders, candidates, and programs, its prolonged stay in power can favor the consolidation of the same political project and a structure of influence built over time, whose institutional effects extend beyond the individual mandates of its rulers. The periodic replacement of Presidents does not necessarily prevent this process. Under certain circumstances, it can renew the personnel while preserving the same party power structure. When a political party remains in government for decades, it can gradually expand its influence over public administration and state institutions. In the Mexican case, the periodic change of Presidents did not, in itself, produce a renewal of the political group that held power. For decades, the PRI remained the main political force in the country, preserving the continuity of the system of government despite the succession of those occupying the Presidency. Experience reveals that Limiting the individual tenure of a President is not enough when the ruling party gets too close to the institutions it should only be managing temporarily. Just as the Presidency is not the personal property of its occupant, the State cannot be transformed into the political property of a party. Mexico has not limited the time a party can remain in power. Despite the PRI's prolonged hegemony, Mexico has not created a rule that obliges a party to leave the government after a certain number of terms. For illustrative purposes , Mexico, for example , did not establish that a political party could only elect three or four successive Presidents, remaining in power for 18 or 24 years —a period significantly longer than the limit imposed on the President—precisely because the risk being addressed is different. A potential time limit for political parties would raise a constitutional dilemma distinct from that seen in the limitation of presidential terms. This would relate to the maximum period during which the same political party could continuously hold the Presidency, even if through different leaders. With the adoption of term limits, the concern would shift from the prolonged stay of a single person in power to the possibility that the excessively long tenure of the same party could foster institutional ties capable of gradually reducing the balance of democratic competition. Mexico sought to address the problem in a different way. Instead of preventing a single party from remaining in power for an extended period, it sought to gradually strengthen electoral institutions to broaden democratic competition and allow different parties to have effective conditions to contest the presidency. The progressive opening of electoral competition The transformation did not occur through a single reform. In 1977 , a political reform broadened the participation of previously marginalized forces and strengthened proportional representation , opening institutional space for opposition parties in the Legislative Branch. Documents from the National Electoral Institute treat this change as the beginning of a generation of reforms that expanded political pluralism and the representation of the opposition. In 1990 , the Federal Electoral Institute ( IFE ) was created in response to the need to strengthen the organization and credibility of elections. In the following years, further reforms progressively reduced the direct influence of the government over electoral administration. The 1996 reform was especially relevant in expanding the autonomy of the electoral authority and consolidating more balanced conditions for competition. The process also involved strengthening the Electoral Court and creating mechanisms for monitoring parties, campaigns, and results. These reforms were not intended to replace one party with another. They sought to increase the competitiveness of the electoral process so that different political forces could compete for government on a more level playing field. The alternation of 2000 On July 2, 2000 , Vicente Fox, candidate of the National Action Party, won the presidential election . The following day, Mexico confirmed a change that for decades had seemed improbable: the PRI lost the presidency after 71 years of continuous dominance. The change did not result from a ban imposed on the ruling party. It stemmed from the gradual creation of conditions that allowed the opposition to compete, win, and assume power. The 2000 change of leadership thus had a greater significance than the simple victory of another candidate. It demonstrated that control of the Executive Branch no longer belonged almost permanently to a single party organization. The PRI itself returned to the Presidency in 2012 , through a competitive election, and left the government again in 2018 . This does not mean that all democratic problems have been solved. The relevant aspect is that party alternation no longer depends on a rupture of the system. It can now occur through the ordinary rules of electoral competition. The gradual and complex Mexican experience in the face of a possible technical alternative. The Mexican experience demonstrates that confronting the prolonged hold of a party in power through the gradual strengthening of electoral institutions has required successive reforms implemented over decades . This is a complex process, with progressive results , that demands continuous institutional improvement to preserve democratic competitiveness. This path required successive constitutional, legal, and institutional reforms implemented over almost twenty years , between 1977 and 1996. The Mexican experience allows us to formulate a thesis for reflection in Comparative Constitutional Law : the thesis that adopting a maximum period of continuous tenure for the same party in the Executive Branch could represent an additional mechanism for protecting democratic alternation, without preventing the party from running in future elections after the period of absence stipulated by law has been served. The purpose of such a measure would not be to definitively exclude a political party from the race for power, but only to establish a temporary restriction on the nomination of a presidential candidate after a long period of continuous tenure in the Executive Branch , fully restoring their eligibility in the subsequent election. The measure would seek to reaffirm that the exercise of public power, just as it does not constitute the personal property of the person holding the Presidency, should also not be confused with the permanent assets of a political party. High-Tech Society - Analysis Mexican experience demonstrates that the periodic replacement of the President does not, in itself, guarantee the renewal of political power. For approximately 71 years, Mexico prevented presidential reelection and successively renewed its rulers. Even so, the same party remained in control of the Executive Branch and exerted dominant influence over important state structures. The country opted to gradually strengthen political competition, expand the autonomy of electoral authorities, and create conditions for the opposition to effectively contest the government. This was a complex, gradual process, implemented over several decades and with slow results, requiring successive constitutional, legislative, and administrative reforms until party alternation became truly possible. The Mexican case shows that limiting the individual and allowing the indefinite continuity of the party can only preserve an apparent renewal . The occupants of the Presidency change, but the dominant structure remains. The challenge, therefore, lies in building institutions that preserve the voter's freedom of choice without allowing prolonged tenure to transform the government into the permanent domain of a single political organization. This experience prompts reflection in comparative constitutional law. Instead of acting solely on the conditions of electoral competition, would it be possible to conceive of a preventive mechanism that limits the maximum period of continuous tenure of the same party in the Executive Branch? Such a hypothesis would not definitively prevent a party from returning to government. It could only establish a maximum period of continuous tenure, followed by a mandatory interval before the presentation of a new presidential candidate. Unlike the Mexican model, which is based on successive reforms aimed at gradually reducing the predominance of the ruling party but required decades of change to be effective, this alternative would seek to proactively prevent a single organization from accumulating enough influence over decades to compromise the balance of democratic competition. The proposal does not intend to replace existing solutions, but to broaden the debate on new instruments designed to preserve democratic alternation and prevent the prolonged concentration of political power. The Mexican experience opens up space for new reflection: If a party continues to win free and competitive elections for decades, should this permanence be fully respected, or would democracy need to develop new mechanisms to limit the prolonged stay of the same party in power? By Luiz Cincurá Founder and Editor High-TechSociety.com Editorial transparency: This article was produced with the support of ChatGPT during the research and preliminary content organization stages. The definition of the editorial approach, critical analysis, technical review, and final writing were carried out by the Editor, who is ultimately responsible for the published content. Sources: CHAMBER OF DIPUTATES OF THE H. CONGRESO DE LA UNIÓN. Political Constitution of the United Mexican States. CRESPO, José Antonio. Mexique 2000: l'année de la déroute du parti hégémonique. Politique étrangère, v. 66, no. 1, p. 123–137, 2001. DOI: 10.3406/polit.2001.5049 FEDERAL ELECTORAL INSTITUTE. Government, parties and elections in Mexico (1977–2010). FEDERAL ELECTORAL INSTITUTE. Federal Electoral Institute: 20 years. NATIONAL ELECTORAL INSTITUTE . The Federal Electoral Institute: presence and legacy. NATIONAL ELECTORAL INSTITUTE. History of the Federal Electoral Institute. National Electoral Institute. History. Reforms and most important events related to the IFE and the INE. ELECTORAL COURT OF THE JUDICIAL POWER OF THE FEDERACIÓN . AMLO and Fox, from similar elections ELECTORAL COURT OF THE JUDICIAL POWER OF THE FEDERACIÓN. Declaration of validity of the election and Elected President of the United Mexican States: federal electoral process 1999–2000. UNIVERSIDAD NACIONAL AUTÓNOMA DE MEXICO - FARO DEMOCRATIC. Democracy in Mexico.

Does democracy strengthen itself by periodically renewing the occupant of the Presidency, or should it allow voters to keep an already consolidated leadership in power for longer? In this new episode of the "Democracies Around the World" series, High-TechSociety presents how the United States addressed this dilemma by constitutionally limiting the number of presidential terms. In a democracy, different institutional solutions can protect equally legitimate values. The continuity of an experienced leader at the head of the Executive Branch can contribute to the stability of the government. On the other hand, the periodic renewal of the occupant of the Presidency can reduce the risk of political concentration and strengthen democracy. At first glance, preventing a re-election bid by a president already established in office might seem like a restriction on the voter's freedom of choice. After all, why prevent the population from keeping in office a leader they approve of? On the other hand, allowing unlimited re-elections also raises a relevant question for democracy. The prolonged stay of the same leader in the Presidency can progressively expand their institutional influence, alter the balance of power, and reduce the renewal of leadership. The United States had to decide what should prevail: the eventual benefit of a leader approved by the population remaining in power, or the permanent protection afforded by the periodic renewal of the presidency. A Constitution with no limit on re-elections. The United States Constitution , adopted in 1787 , established a four-year presidential term, but did not limit the number of re-elections. The possibility of reelection allowed for the preservation of the experience of a president considered competent and, at the same time, his permanence in the Presidency for an indefinite period. For approximately 150 years , this dilemma was not resolved by a constitutional rule, but by a political tradition. The tradition started by George Washington In 1797 , George Washington voluntarily left the Presidency after completing his second term, although there was no legal impediment to running for the office again. His decision established a precedent of great institutional importance. From that gesture onward, it became expected that, after two terms, the president would voluntarily leave office, allowing for the renewal of leadership in the Executive Branch. The presidents who succeeded George Washington followed this practice, transforming the two-term limit into a respected custom for about a century and a half. However, it was merely a political tradition. Nothing prevented a popular president from running for a third or subsequent terms, leaving the decision about his remaining in the Presidency to the electorate. The fact that led to the change This possibility of successive re-elections, until then only potential, became a reality with Franklin D. Roosevelt. Elected in 1932 and re-elected in 1936 , Roosevelt ran for president again in 1940 , winning a third term. In 1944 he was elected for a fourth time, becoming the only president in American history to surpass the traditional two-term limit. His continued tenure occurred under exceptional circumstances. The United States was facing the effects of the Great Depression and, subsequently, was involved in World War II . For many voters, the continuity of presidential leadership represented stability during a period of great uncertainty. The experience, however, produced a broader institutional reflection. If a tradition respected for approximately 150 years could be overridden under extraordinary circumstances, should democracy continue to depend solely on that custom? Shortly after Roosevelt's death in 1945 , Congress began the process of constitutional reform. In 1947, it approved the proposed 22nd Amendment to the United States Constitution , which was ratified by the states in 1951 . From tradition to the Constitution The 22nd Amendment to the United States Constitution established that no person may be elected President more than twice. Thus, the limit applies both to successive re-elections and to the possibility of returning to office after an interval. The rule also governs the circumstances of presidential succession. The Vice-President or any other person in the line of succession who assumes the Presidency and serves more than two years of the remaining term may be elected only once. Conversely, if they serve less than two years of that term, they may run for president twice. Thus, in exceptional succession situations , the same person may remain in the Presidency for a maximum period of approximately ten years , although they can never be elected three times. The change produced an important institutional effect. Until then, the periodic renewal of the occupant of the Presidency depended on the president's voluntary decision to follow the precedent set by George Washington. Beginning with the 22nd Amendment, it became a constitutional obligation applicable to any person, regardless of their popularity, political influence, or approval among the electorate. What does the limitation seek to protect? Term limits were not created to assess whether a particular president governed well or poorly. Their logic is preventative . Even a widely approved leader needs to leave office after a certain period. Democracy should not depend on one person remaining in power for an extended period, nor should it assume that only that person is capable of leading the country. The limitation of terms also reinforces a central idea of constitutional democracies: the Presidency is a state institution, exercised temporarily on behalf of the community, and not a personal asset of the officeholder. The periodic renewal of the President's occupant contributes to preserving this distinction. By transforming a political custom into a constitutional rule, the United States sought to ensure that the periodic renewal of the occupant of the Presidency would no longer depend on the personal will of the rulers, but would become a permanent part of the institutional structure of democracy. The dilemma between continuity and democratic renewal. The American solution does not eliminate the dilemma. By preventing a third election, the Constitution also removes from the voter the possibility of keeping in office a president considered competent. In times of crisis, the country may lose an experienced leader precisely when part of the population would wish to preserve the continuity of the government. For this reason, term limits do not represent a choice between a perfectly correct solution and a necessarily wrong one. It represents the definition of which democratic risk deserves greater protection . The United States concluded that the occasional benefits of a leader with broad public approval did not outweigh the institutional protection offered by periodically renewing the occupant of the Presidency. High-Tech Society - Analysis The American experience demonstrates that established democracies seek to reduce their dependence on the individual qualities of their leaders. For approximately 150 years, the tradition inaugurated by George Washington proved sufficient to preserve the periodic renewal of the occupant of the Presidency. The election of Franklin D. Roosevelt to four terms, however, revealed that exceptional circumstances could override this custom. The United States decided to respond institutionally to this challenge. Instead of relying solely on the self-restraint of future presidents, they transformed periodic renewal into a constitutional guarantee. This decision is not based on the assumption that every ruler will seek to unduly prolong their stay in power. It is based on a broader principle: democratic institutions should not depend on the personal virtue of rulers to preserve the periodic renewal of the occupant of the Presidency. By constitutionally limiting presidential terms, the United States made a clear institutional choice. Between the eventual benefit of the continuity of a leader widely approved by the population and the permanent protection afforded by the periodic renewal of the occupant of the Presidency, they assigned greater value to this renewal as a permanent mechanism for protecting democracy. By Luiz Cincurá Founder and Editor High-TechSociety.com Editorial transparency: This article was produced with the support of ChatGPT during the research and preliminary content organization stages. The definition of the editorial approach, critical analysis, technical review, and final writing were carried out by the Editor, who is ultimately responsible for the published content. Sources: CONSTITUTION ANNOTATED. Twenty-Second Amendment – Historical Background. Library of Congress. CONSTITUTION ANNOTATED. Twenty-Second Amendment. NATIONAL ARCHIVES UNITED STATES CAPITOL VISITOR CENTER. Joint Resolution Proposing the Twenty-Second Amendment. THE AVALON PROJECT – Yale Law School. The Federalist No. 72 (Alexander Hamilton). TEACHING AMERICAN HISTORY. House Debate on the Twenty-Second Amendment. HISTORY.COM Why Does the US Have Presidential Term Limits? PBS NEWSHOUR. Why does the US have presidential term limits?

Does the purpose of an election debate be to reflect the polls or to allow voters to get to know the candidates? Democracy is made up of a set of institutions, rules, and procedures that go far beyond the act of voting. In this series, "Democracies Around the World," High-TechSociety presents experiences adopted by different countries to address specific challenges of the democratic process. Topics already covered include the democratic selection of candidates by political parties, protecting the formation of voter will in the face of the dissemination of electoral polls, and transparency in voting and vote counting. In this article, the series examines another fundamental aspect of democracy: who establishes and what are the criteria for choosing the candidates who will participate in electoral debates? Election debates occupy a prominent place in campaigns for executive branch positions. In many countries, they represent the main opportunity for millions of voters to directly compare the candidates' proposals, preparation, argumentation skills, and vision for governance. However, even before the debate begins, a question arises that often goes unnoticed: Who should participate in the debates? At first glance, the answer seems simple. After all, if the goal is to bring together the candidates with the best chances of winning, it would be enough to invite those who are leading in the polls. But this solution leads to a democratic dilemma: if debates exist so that voters can get to know the candidates better, wouldn't using polls to determine who can participate further increase the advantage of those who are already better known? In other words: Should the debate reflect the polls or allow voters to get to know the candidates? This question reveals an institutional challenge faced by many democracies: how to preserve the quality of debates without preventing new leaders from having the opportunity to present their proposals to the electorate? The dilemma between quality and equal opportunities. Allowing all candidates to participate in debates can, under certain circumstances, make them excessively long, hinder in-depth discussion of the topics, and reduce audience attention. On the other hand, excessively restricting participation could concentrate public exposure only on candidates who already have greater political visibility, making it difficult for new leaders to gain voter recognition. The question, therefore, is not simply about deciding who should participate in the debates. It consists, above all, of defining who should establish the criteria for this choice . When this decision remains exclusively in the hands of television networks, private organizers, or even election polls , questions arise about the impartiality of the process. It was precisely to meet this challenge that Canada developed a unique institutional model within the parliamentary system. Unlike presidential systems, where voters directly choose the head of the Executive Branch, in Canada they do not vote directly for Prime Minister. Voters elect members of the House of Commons. After the election, the leader of the party that obtains the support of a parliamentary majority is invited by the Governor-General – the representative of the Head of State – to form the government and serve as Prime Minister. During the election campaign, the leaders of the main parties present their government programs and become, in the eyes of the electorate, the candidates for the position of Prime Minister. It is between these leaders that national debates take place. The emergence of an institutional solution For many years, Canadian federal debates were organized through negotiations between media outlets and political parties. This model began to receive criticism. Among other aspects, the lack of permanent criteria for defining which leaders would participate in the debates was questioned, as well as the possibility of different decisions being adopted in each election. In response to these concerns, the Government of Canada established the Leaders Debates Commission in 2018, which was subsequently strengthened in its institutional mandate. Its goal was not simply to organize debates. The proposal was far more ambitious: to transform national debates into a permanent institution of the Canadian democratic process, based on predictable, transparent rules independent of the political negotiations that take place during each election campaign. This represents an important shift in perspective. Instead of simply discussing who participates in the debates , Canada has moved on to discussing how the criteria that define this participation should be constructed . An independent commission The Commission operates independently of the government and political parties. Her mandate includes organizing two national debates in each federal election—one in English and one in French. She also establishes the criteria for participation by party leaders and ensures broad public accessibility, among other responsibilities. How were the participation criteria established? For the 2025 national debates, the Commission established criteria focused on simplicity, objectivity, transparency, verification, and compatibility with the public interest. Furthermore, the Commission sought to avoid any single factor determining participation in the debates. In its assessment, the Commission considered that both relying exclusively on election polls and automatically admitting all candidates presented significant limitations. The solution found was to combine different indicators of representativeness and electoral viability. Criteria that seek to balance representativeness and feasibility. To participate in the national debates, a party leader had to meet at least two of three criteria previously established by the Commission. The first criterion was having parliamentary representation , that is, leading a party that already had at least one member elected to the House of Commons on the date the election was called. The second criterion considered current electoral viability . For this, the party needed to achieve at least 4% of national voting intentions , measured by the average of the main public polls conducted approximately four weeks before the election. The Commission did not limit itself to accepting just any statistical survey. The polls used were selected considering aspects such as methodology, national scope, credibility of the institutes, and recency of the data. The third criterion sought to demonstrate the effective capacity to contest a national election. The party had to field candidates in at least 90% of the federal electoral districts . The goal was to distinguish parties with a truly national reach from those whose electoral presence remained limited to certain regions or whose participation in the election was only partial. The Commission opted not to require simultaneous fulfillment of all three requirements. It was sufficient for the leader to satisfy two of the three criteria. This solution sought to avoid both excessive rigidity and flexibility that could compromise the quality of the debates. None of the criteria, in isolation, was considered sufficient to demonstrate that a particular candidacy should necessarily participate in the national debates. It was precisely the combination of them that the Commission considered capable of producing a more balanced result. The institutional logic deserves emphasis. The logic behind this combination deserves highlighting. A newly created party may not yet have parliamentary representation, but demonstrate electoral viability by achieving at least 4% of voting intentions and presenting candidates in more than 90% of federal electoral districts. Similarly, a party already represented in the House of Commons may remain eligible to participate in debates even without reaching the 4% threshold in polls, provided it maintains parliamentary representation and national reach , evidenced by presenting candidates in at least 90% of federal electoral districts. By combining different indicators, the model seeks to prevent a single criterion from determining, in isolation, who will have access to the main space for presenting proposals to the electorate. The effectiveness of the rules A legal norm only acquires full credibility when it demonstrates the ability to produce concrete effects. In the 2025 federal elections, the Commission had to deal with a situation that put its own criteria to the test. Following an initial assessment, a political party had been deemed eligible to participate in the debates. However, after the official deadline for candidate registration, it was found that the party no longer met one of the previously established requirements to demonstrate its national competitive capacity. Given this new scenario, the Commission reassessed its decision and revoked the previously issued invitation . Regardless of opinions on the merits of the decision, the episode revealed an important aspect of the Canadian model: the previously disclosed criteria were effectively applied, even when this required modifying a decision that had already been announced. More important than the specific case is the institutional message conveyed to the voter: the rules did not remain merely on paper. An institution that seeks to learn continuously. Perhaps the most interesting aspect of the Canadian experience lies not so much in the criteria adopted, but in the way they evolve. After each federal election, the Commission conducts a comprehensive institutional evaluation process. The debates are analyzed from various perspectives, including organization, format, participation criteria, moderation, accessibility, transmission, and audience reach. Next, it holds consultations with political parties, experts, researchers, communication professionals, and representatives of civil society. The findings are compiled into an official report submitted to the Canadian Parliament, containing recommendations aimed at improving the model for future elections. This practice demonstrates a particularly interesting conception of democracy. Instead of considering established rules as definitive, the system assumes that public institutions can learn from accumulated experience and continuously improve their own operating mechanisms. High-Tech Society - Analysis By removing the choice of debate participants—from negotiations between political parties and media outlets—and assigning it to an independent commission that operates with public criteria, expert consultations, and accountability to Parliament, Canada seeks to make this process more transparent, predictable, and institutional. Naturally, no model completely eliminates controversies. There will always be room to discuss whether a certain percentage of polls should be higher or lower, whether the requirement of candidates in 90% of districts represents the most appropriate equilibrium point, or whether other criteria could produce different results. These disagreements are inherent to democracies. However, perhaps the most relevant aspect is not the choice of a specific criterion, but the method used to construct it. The Canadian model offers a reflection that goes beyond the organization of electoral debates. Its main merit, perhaps, lies not in the criteria adopted, but in the way it addressed a complex institutional issue , which requires a balanced solution to reconcile different democratic objectives, transforming it into a permanent institutional procedure based on previously known rules, public consultations, technical justification, and continuous review. Trust in the Commission responsible for organizing national televised debates, which reach a large audience and have a significant impact on the electorate, is built through ongoing institutional consultations with the various actors involved in the electoral process and the uniform application of pre-established criteria . Furthermore, the model is based on the recognition that political dynamics are constantly changing . For this reason, the Commission promotes the constant improvement of its rules, seeking to offer voters increasingly representative, balanced, and useful debates for forming their opinions. By Luiz Cincurá Founder and Editor High-TechSociety.com Editorial transparency: This article was produced with the support of ChatGPT during the research and preliminary content organization stages. The definition of the editorial approach, critical analysis, technical review, and final writing were carried out by the Editor, who is ultimately responsible for the published content. Sources: Government of Canada. Leaders' Debates Commission . Leaders' Debates Commission. Mandate . Leaders' Debates Commission. Participation Criteria for the Next Leaders Debates (2025). Leaders' Debates Commission. Polling Methodology. Leaders' Debates Commission. Decision concerning the participation of a political party in the 2025 Leaders' Debates. Leaders Debates Commission. Report 2025. Parliament of Canada. Majority and Minority Governments.

Understand why Italy banned the publication of election polls in the fifteen days leading up to the vote. This Italian rule may seem restrictive at first glance, but it stems from a concern that has been debated for decades by political scientists, jurists, and electoral authorities: ensuring that, in the final stretch of the campaign, voters decide their vote based on the candidates' proposals and not influenced by voter trends indicated by electoral polls. The silence of the polls. The rule is stipulated in Law No. 28, of February 22, 2000 , known as the par condicio law , which regulates the balance of political communication during election campaigns. Article 8 stipulates that, in the fifteen days prior to the election , the dissemination of polls on voting intentions or electoral projections is prohibited, even if they were conducted before the start of the restriction period . The prohibition extends to newspapers, magazines, radio and television stations, news portals, and other media outlets. Why did Italy adopt this rule? The Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni (AGCOM) itself explains that the purpose of the rule is to prevent undue conditioning of the electorate, especially those who have not yet decided how to vote. The concern is that polls released in the final stretch of the campaign could trigger phenomena known to Political Science. Among them is the bandwagon effect¹ (winner's support effect) , in which part of the electorate begins to support the candidate who appears to be leading in the polls, driven by the perception that this candidate will likely be the winner . Another phenomenon is the so-called strategic voting , when the voter stops supporting their preferred candidate to vote for another considered more competitive , with the aim of preventing a less desirable outcome from occurring. Although both phenomena can result from the release of election polls, they are distinct: the first is associated with the tendency to support the leading candidate, while the second stems from a strategic decision based on an assessment of the viability among the competitors. Added to this is the perception that the election is practically decided even before the polls open , which can influence the behavior of undecided voters, either due to demotivation to participate in the selection process or due to a change in the perception of the competitiveness of the contest. Although the influence of polls on voter behavior is the subject of extensive academic debate, the Italian legislature has adopted the assumption that this influence may exist and, for this reason, has prohibited the public dissemination of electoral polls during the fifteen days immediately preceding the election. It is important to note that Italian law does not prohibit conducting polls during this period. The prohibition applies to their public dissemination, allowing parties and candidates to continue using surveys for internal campaign analysis, provided that their results are not disclosed through the media or other publicly accessible channels. By creating a blackout period for the release of election polls, the legislation seeks to offer citizens a space for reflection in which they are less affected by the results of polls that aim to indicate who is leading the electoral race. Transparency remains mandatory. Outside of the prohibited period, Italian law requires a high degree of transparency. All published research must clearly state the institute responsible for conducting it, the client who commissioned the survey, the methodology used, the sample size, the data collection period, and the questions asked to respondents. Furthermore, this information should be made available on an official Italian government platform, allowing researchers, journalists, and citizens to analyze the methodological quality of each survey. Who is responsible for any infraction that may occur? Oversight falls to AGCOM , the communications regulatory authority in Italy. The sanctions mainly affect those who produce or disseminate the research irregularly, and can extend to electoral research institutes and media outlets through administrative measures provided for in the legislation. The candidacy itself is not automatically affected by the irregular dissemination of a poll. The logic of the Italian system focuses accountability on those who violate the rules of electoral communication, and not on the candidate who may be favored by the dissemination. This option seeks to preserve legal certainty, avoiding electoral sanctions without demonstrating the candidate's direct participation in the infraction. High-Tech Society – Analysis The Italian model reveals a legitimate concern: protecting the voter's choice-making process precisely when their decision is about to become a vote, preventing the release of polls in the final stretch of the campaign from exerting a disproportionate influence on their evaluation of the candidates. However, without going into the merits of the sufficiency of the sanctions provided for in Italian legislation, as that is not the subject of this article, it is worth noting that any country intending to adopt a similar mechanism must consider an essential aspect: every legal norm only fully achieves its objectives when it manages to discourage its violation . If an improperly released poll could influence millions of voters, but the penalty imposed on the responsible party represents a relatively low cost, part of the preventive effect of the legislation may be reduced. In other words, when the potential benefit of the infraction outweighs the cost of the punishment, the practical effectiveness of the rule tends to decrease. Thus, another aspect to consider in national regulations on the subject would be to establish fines proportional to the impact of the infraction, broad public dissemination of sanctioning decisions, accountability of the contractor when there is proof of their participation in the irregular dissemination, and, in cases of recidivism, more severe administrative sanctions for electoral research institutes and media outlets that insist on violating the legislation. The true success of an electoral law depends not only on the quality of its principles, but also on its ability to transform those principles into concrete incentives for compliance with the law. By opting for silence regarding polls in the fifteen days leading up to the election, Italy made a clear institutional choice: to create a period in which public debate focuses less on trends indicated by electoral surveys and more on evaluating the proposals, track record, and capabilities of the candidates. This is an attempt to reduce the influence that last-minute statistical information can exert on undecided voters and, thus, favor a decision based predominantly on each citizen's personal conviction. Regardless of whether one agrees with this model or not, the Italian experience demonstrates that different democracies seek to improve their electoral processes through distinct paths. The ongoing challenge lies in finding the balance between two equally important values: ensuring broad access to information and preserving an environment that fosters increasingly conscious, thoughtful voting decisions, free from circumstantial influences. By Luiz Cincurá Founder and Editor High-TechSociety.com Editorial transparency: This article was produced with the support of ChatGPT during the research and preliminary content organization stages. The definition of the editorial approach, critical analysis, technical review, and final writing were carried out by the Editor, who is ultimately responsible for the published content. Notice ¹ “Bandwagon” is an idiomatic expression used to describe a popular trend, activity, or cause that attracts increasing support. “Jump on the bandwagon” means adopting a trend or joining a group simply because it has become successful or widely accepted. Sources ITALIAN GOVERNMENT. Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri – Division for Information and Editorial. Electoral political poll. Accessed on June 28, 2026. AGCOM. Authoritativeness for ensuring communication. Electoral political poll. Accessed on June 28, 2026. Italian Parliament. Legge 22 February 2000, n. 28 (Par condicio), Article 8 – Sondaggi politici ed elettorali . Accessed on June 28, 2026.

Who chooses who runs in the election? Costa Rica's experience shows why the choice of candidates should also be democratic. When we talk about democracy, the most common image is that of voters going to the polls to choose their representatives. However, there is a prior step that receives much less attention, although it is crucial to the entire electoral process: who chooses the candidates who will appear on the ballot? The answer seems simple: political parties. But the way this choice is made can vary significantly between democracies. In some countries, the selection of candidates is concentrated in the decisions of the party leadership. In others, efforts are made to ensure that the members themselves participate directly in this process, through assemblies, conventions, or internal elections. After all, if the voter can only choose from the candidates presented to them, the quality of democracy also depends on how those candidates were chosen . It was precisely this concern that led Costa Rica to adopt a solution little known outside of Central America. Article 98 of the Costa Rican Constitution stipulates that political parties are fundamental instruments of political participation and establishes that their internal structure and functioning must be democratic. Democracy, therefore, is not only required of elections organized by the State, but also of the internal life of the party organizations themselves. This constitutional guideline did not remain merely on paper. The Costa Rican Electoral Code mandates that parties maintain an Internal Electoral Tribunal , an organ responsible for organizing, administering, and overseeing their internal electoral processes in accordance with the principles of impartiality, objectivity, and transparency. Furthermore, the Supreme Electoral Tribunal (TSE) , the highest authority in Costa Rican electoral justice, has consolidated the understanding that the internal democracy of parties has constitutional relevance. In several decisions, it has recognized that parties play an essential role in shaping the popular will and that their internal rules must respect the democratic principles enshrined in the Constitution , and that their actions may be subject to control by the Electoral Court when there is an allegation of violation of these principles. This does not mean that the system is perfect or that internal conflicts cease to exist. As in any consolidated democracy, debates continue to arise regarding the effective participation of members, the transparency of internal procedures, and the interpretation of party rules. The aspect that differentiates the Costa Rican experience is another: the internal democracy of parties has ceased to be merely a political expectation and has become a constitutional principle accompanied by institutional mechanisms designed to give it effect. This constitutional guideline did not remain merely at the level of principles. On July 24, 2019, the Supreme Electoral Tribunal (TSE) of Costa Rica published Resolution No. 4808-E8-2019 , in response to a query submitted by the Unidad Social Cristiana Party (PUSC) regarding the limits of its party leadership's actions in internal candidate selection processes. Among the questions presented to the Court were the possibility of altering rules for registering pre-candidacies after the start of the internal dispute, reopening deadlines that had already passed, and modifying decisions of the party's own Internal Electoral Court. In responding to the inquiry, the Court reaffirmed that the rules governing an internal electoral dispute must be clearly defined before the process begins and cannot be modified during its execution, precisely to preserve equality among participants, legal certainty, and the transparency of internal elections. It also emphasized that the Internal Electoral Court possesses functional and administrative autonomy, and is not subordinate to the party leadership in carrying out its duties. The Costa Rican model assumes that the selection of candidates should occur through democratic processes with the participation of party members , not simply by the will of its leadership. However, the Electoral Court itself recognizes exceptional situations in which the party's superior assembly can directly nominate candidates. This occurs, for example, when, after the registration period for the internal election has ended, there are no interested members who meet the previously established requirements for a given candidacy. In these limited circumstances, direct nomination serves as a subsidiary measure to prevent the vacancy from remaining unfilled, and not as a replacement for the general rule of democratic participation by members. In practice, Resolution No. 4808-E8-2019 reinforced an essential principle of Costa Rican internal democracy: the selection of candidates must follow rules previously known to all participants, preserving the participation of members, equal opportunities, and the transparency of the process . Thus, the internal democracy of parties ceased to represent merely a constitutional ideal and became an effective parameter of control exercised by the Electoral Court. High-Tech Society – Analysis The Costa Rican experience invites a reflection that rarely occupies space in public debate. Democracy does not begin when the voter chooses between the presented candidates. It begins earlier, at the moment when those candidates are chosen by the political parties themselves. The more transparent, participatory, and democratic this internal process is, the greater the legitimacy of the candidacies tends to be, and the greater the confidence of the members themselves in the party organization. Regardless of the model adopted by each country, the Costa Rican experience demonstrates that strengthening the internal democracy of parties does not mean limiting their autonomy, but rather recognizing that parties perform an essential public function: selecting the individuals who will later be subject to the sovereign judgment of the electorate. Ultimately, the quality of democracy depends not only on the freedom to vote, but also on how those who will compete for the trust of society are chosen. By Luiz Cincurá Founder and Editor High-TechSociety.com Editorial transparency: This article was produced with the support of ChatGPT during the research and preliminary content organization stages. The definition of the editorial approach, critical analysis, technical review, and final writing were carried out by the Editor, who is ultimately responsible for the published content. Sources: POLITICAL CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF COSTA RICA . Article 98. MORA BARAHONA, Iván. Dialectics between internal democracy and the self-government of political parties in the nomination of candidates for popular election posts. Revista de Derecho Electoral, Tribunal Supremo de Elecciones, Republic of Costa Rica, n. 29, 1st semester of 2020. DOI: 10.35242/RDE_2020_29_14. SUPREME COURT OF ELECCIONES (TSE), REPUBLIC OF COSTA RICA. Electoral Regulations. SUPREME ELECTORAL COURT (TSE), REPUBLIC OF COSTA RICA. RESOLUTION No. 4808-E8-2019. SUPREME COURT OF ELECCIONES (TSE), REPUBLIC OF COSTA RICA. Relevant resolutions: Political parties.

From expedited election results through the use of technology to preserving the public counting of votes in shaping collective will. The debate surrounding the adoption of technology in receiving and counting votes in Germany has oscillated between efficiency, security, and public trust. This discussion took on constitutional dimensions following the limited (experimental) use of electronic voting machines in the 2005 federal elections. Although no proven fraud or institutional rupture occurred, the country underwent an intense process of legal and democratic reflection. This resulted in the redefinition of acceptable limits for the computerization of voting and vote counting. The outcome of this process was the establishment of a central principle: the legitimacy of the vote count depends on the possibility of public verification understandable by any citizen , and not just by technical experts. The context of the 2005 elections and the emergence of the debate. In the 2005 German federal elections, electronic voting machines were used experimentally in certain locations. The election results were officially recognized, and no irregularities were found. However, the use of systems that recorded and tallied votes exclusively electronically raised significant concerns among legal experts, information security specialists, and sectors of civil society. The main concern was not about a specific error that occurred in that election, but about a structural weakness: the impossibility of a manual recount and an independent public audit of the votes . In a hypothetical – but perfectly plausible – scenario of an extremely close race, this limitation could make it impossible to resolve electoral disputes transparently, fueling distrust, contesting results, and political instability. If the use of electronic voting machines continued as they had been used, German jurists, citizens, and experts envisioned a perfectly plausible scenario that caused great concern: If an extremely close election were to occur, the electronic system then in use would not allow for a public recount or an audit understandable to any and all citizens – which could lead to rejection of the result, a crisis of legitimacy, and a disruption of social peace. This potential risk was deemed sufficient to trigger legal action on the matter and bring the issue before the Bundesverfassungsgericht (Federal Constitutional Court of Germany). On March 3, 2009, the Bundesverfassungsgericht (Federal Constitutional Court) delivered a landmark decision ruling unconstitutional the use of electronic voting machines then authorized by German law. The Court held that the Bundeswahlgeräteverordnung (Federal Ordinance on Electoral Equipment) did not ensure adequate conditions for public oversight of the electoral process. The decision was based primarily on Articles 20 and 38 of the German Constitution (Grundgesetz) , which establish the so-called principle of election transparency . According to this principle, all essential acts of the electoral process – including the counting of votes – must be accessible and understandable to the general public, without requiring specialized technical knowledge. The court did not invalidate the result of the 2005 election, as there was no evidence of manipulation or error – but it prevented the continued use of electronic voting machines until transparency and auditability requirements equivalent to paper ballots were met. He concluded that the machine system used did not allow the public, nor poll watchers or election officials, to verify in a comprehensible and reliable way whether the votes were recorded correctly. Critics of the use of the machines, such as the Chaos Computer Club (CCC) – a major technology and security group in Germany – argued at the time that the system generated a “culture of specialization” in which only technicians or manufacturers could understand how the process worked, thus removing direct control from the voter over the election . The court also emphasized that the speed in obtaining results cannot override transparency and the possibility of public verification of votes. The change decided by the Court was not reactive, but preventive, since there was no visible fraud, but the concern was to guarantee verifiable legitimacy. The Court acknowledged that electronic voting systems are not, in theory, incompatible with the German Constitution. However, it stated that, as they were being used, they created an excessive dependence on specialists and manufacturers, distancing the average citizen from effective control of the democratic process. As a direct consequence of the decision, Germany abandoned direct electronic voting systems without verifiable physical traces and switched to using paper ballots filled out manually by voters , which are then counted by electoral commissions at the polling place, as the standard in federal and regional elections. This method ensures that any citizen can observe the counting and verification of votes without relying on technology that is not accessible to voters. Although the theoretical possibility of auditable electronic systems still exists, no system has been widely adopted since 2009 because constitutional requirements have made it difficult to implement technology that allows for complete public verification. In summary, the current system is considered stable, reliable, and socially peaceful , with strong consensus among experts that public trust is only preserved when voters can understand and directly verify how the vote is counted . The use of paper ballots, combined with public counting, is seen as a central element for the acceptance of election results, even in close races. The 2009 decision emphasized that democratic legitimacy depends on both the technical integrity and the public auditability of votes . By prioritizing transparency and public understanding over technological efficiency, Germany consolidated an electoral model that seeks to balance security, fairness, and voter confidence—albeit at the expense of some gains promised by complete automation . By proactively addressing institutional weaknesses, Germany chose to strengthen public confidence and preserve acceptance of the election results. The Germans understood that, more than expressing their will at the ballot box, voters need access to the vote count so they can be sure of the result and respect it, even if it is unfavorable to their choice, thus guaranteeing its legitimacy. This is an example of how established democracies can improve their institutions not only in response to crises, but also through the proactive identification of risks that could undermine public trust. By Luiz Cincurá Founder and Editor High-TechSociety.com Editorial transparency: This article was produced with the support of ChatGPT during the research and preliminary content organization stages. The definition of the editorial approach, critical analysis, technical review, and final writing were carried out by the Editor, who is ultimately responsible for the published content. Editor's Note: This article is limited to analyzing the German experience, considered within its specific historical, legal, and technological context. Its objective is to present the foundations that led to the reformulation of the German voting and vote-counting model in light of the country's Constitution and the decisions of its Federal Constitutional Court, without extrapolating this analysis to electoral systems adopted by other countries, whose institutional, constitutional, and technological realities may be distinct. Sources: BUNDESTAG. Study of the Office of Technology Assessment (TAB). BUNDESTAG. Büro für Technikfolgen-Abschätzung (TAB). E-Voting: Stand und Perspektiven in Deutschland . BUNDESVERFASSUNGSGERICHT. Pressemitteilung und Analyze zur Entscheidung über Wahlcomputer . Urteil vom 3. März 2009 – 2 BvC 3/07 und 2 BvC 4/07 . CHAOS COMPUTER CLUB (CCC). Die Bundeswahlleiterin. Wahlgeräte und Wahlverfahren in Deutschland . Analyze zum Wahlcomputer-Urteil des Bundesverfassungsgerichts . LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. Germany: Constitutional Court Decision on Electronic Voting. POLITIZE! In Deutschland wird derzeit keine elektronische Stimmabgabe geneutzt, und man ist wieder zur Verwendung von Papierstimmzetteln zurückgekehrt.

The challenge of the grass and the greatest champions. Throughout this special series, presented in three parts, the High-Tech Society has explored the history, tradition, structure, and organization of Wimbledon. In this third and final part, the focus is on the main characteristic that distinguishes the tournament from other Grand Slams: the natural grass court , considered by many experts to be the most demanding on the professional circuit. The natural grass of Wimbledon Although all Grand Slam tournaments bring together the elite of world tennis, only Wimbledon is played on grass. This characteristic significantly alters the dynamics of the matches and demands an adaptation from the athletes that goes far beyond technique. The speed of the ball, the way it bounces, and even the movement of the players are directly influenced by the surface. On grass, the ball tends to maintain a higher speed after hitting the ground and has a lower, and sometimes less predictable, bounce than on hard or clay courts. As a result, tennis players have less time to react , which makes reflexes, shot accuracy, and decision-making even more important. Efficient servers usually gain an advantage, while players who like to attack the net find better opportunities to finish points with volleys. Another determining factor is movement. While clay allows for controlled slides, grass demands constant balance and rapid changes of direction. A small positioning error can compromise an entire rally. Furthermore, the surface undergoes natural wear and tear during the tournament . In the early rounds, the grass has virtually uniform coverage. As the competition progresses, especially in areas near the baseline, the vegetation becomes worn away, altering the ball's behavior and requiring players to constantly adapt. These characteristics help explain why even the most skilled hard-court or clay-court players don't always manage to replicate their performance at Wimbledon. The style of play favored by grass Players with powerful serves, excellent offensive play, and quick transitions often find the field a favorable environment to exploit their main qualities. Renowned tennis players at Wimbledon More than just distributing millions in prize money or bringing together some of the best tennis players of today, Wimbledon remains the stage where legends of the sport have written some of the most remarkable chapters in tennis history. Names like William Renshaw, Laurence Doherty, Björn Borg, Roger Federer, Novak Djokovic, Pete Sampras, Helen Wills Moody, Billie Jean King, Martina Navratilova, Steffi Graf, and Serena Williams, among other renowned players, have been immortalized on the grass courts of the All England Club, inspiring successive generations of athletes. Throughout its history, Wimbledon has produced some of the greatest names in world tennis. Below is a table (with side scrolling) showing the tennis players who have won at least three singles titles at Wimbledon, their nationalities, the number of titles, and the years of their respective victories. Wimbledon without borders In each edition, hundreds of thousands of fans compete for the highly sought-after tickets to watch the matches in person, while millions of viewers around the world follow the tournament on television and digital platforms. The official channels provide comprehensive information, continuously updated throughout the competition, such as the daily schedule, results, men's and women's singles draws, and the ATP and WTA world rankings. In the United Kingdom, whose monarchy is among the oldest and most traditional in the world, Wimbledon maintains a position consolidated by history among the four Grand Slam tournaments, built since 1877. Winning a title on its grass courts elevates the champion's name to the select group of the great protagonists of world tennis. By Luiz Cincurá Founder and Editor High-TechSociety.com Editorial transparency: This article was produced with the support of ChatGPT during the research and preliminary content organization stages. The definition of the editorial approach, critical analysis, technical review, and final writing were carried out by the Editor, who is ultimately responsible for the published content. Sources: Wimbledon – The Championships (official website) ATP Tour WTA Tour International Tennis Hall of Fame Encyclopaedia Britannica

The most traditional Grand Slam in the world - part 1. The 2026 edition of the Wimbledon tournament began this Monday, June 29th, in London, more precisely at the traditional All England Club sports complex. Matches started at 11:00 AM London time (BST), marking the beginning of another edition. The tournament will run for two weeks, concluding on July 12, 2026, when the men's and women's singles champions will be crowned. During this period, the event brings together the top names in world tennis in a competition that combines high technical skill, tradition, and an atmosphere considered unique within the professional circuit. What is Wimbledon and why is it a Grand Slam? Wimbledon is the oldest and most prestigious tennis tournament in the world, held annually for almost 150 years, since 1877. The tournament was interrupted only during the two world wars. In professional tennis, Wimbledon is part of the group of so-called Grand Slams, a name given to the four most important tournaments on the international calendar. This classification refers not only to historical prestige, but also to the fact that these events offer the highest points for world rankings and bring together the elite of the sport. The four Grand Slams Each of these tournaments has its own characteristics, but Wimbledon stands out markedly for being the only one played on natural grass courts. This factor directly influences the style of play, making matches faster and demanding sharper reflexes, precision in strokes, and constant adaptation to the ball's behavior on the grass from the athletes. Tradition and historical identity of the tournament Throughout its nearly century and a half of existence, Wimbledon has built a unique identity within world sport. Unlike other major sporting events, the tournament maintains a strong connection to its original traditions, which includes strict adherence to the predominantly white dress code, meticulous care for the grass, and the preservation of centuries-old protocols that reinforce its historical character. Another striking element is the atmosphere of the event, which combines modernity and tradition in a balanced way . The frequent presence of the British Royal Family, the traditional consumption of strawberries and cream by the public, and the absolute respect for silence during points are aspects that help consolidate Wimbledon as a unique event on the international sporting scene. Start of the competition and organization of the schedule. The Wimbledon 2026 schedule follows the tournament's traditional format, with matches spread over two weeks . There is no opening ceremony with musical performances or artistic shows, as is the case in other major international sporting events. The organization maintains a more sober format , in which the focus is entirely on the start of the matches and the traditional sporting protocol. A tournament that prioritizes sport over spectacle. Wimbledon maintains a philosophy that prioritizes the sport in its most classic form . This characteristic contributes to the event being frequently cited as the most elegant and traditional on the world circuit , reinforcing its position as one of the historical pillars of professional tennis. In the second part of this special High-Tech Society series, we will present the complete competition format, the number of participants in the men's and women's brackets, the competition system, the main favorites for the title, as well as information on how to watch the matches on television and streaming platforms. By Luiz Cincurá Founder and Editor High-TechSociety.com Editorial transparency: This article was produced with the support of ChatGPT during the research and preliminary content organization stages. The definition of the editorial approach, critical analysis, technical review, and final writing were carried out by the Editor, who is ultimately responsible for the published content. Sources : Wimbledon . Official tournament website . Accessed June 29, 2026. All England Lawn Tennis and Croquet Club.Accessed on 29.jun.2026. ATP Tour – Men's World Circuit. Accessed June 29, 2026. WTA Tour – Women's World Circuit. Accessed June 29, 2026. International Tennis Federation. Accessed on June 29, 2026. Lawn Tennis Association (LTA). Accessed June 29, 2026.

Awards, tickets and facilities After learning about the history and traditions of Wimbledon in the first part of this special series, it's time to understand how the organization of what is considered the most prestigious tennis tournament on the planet works. The 2026 edition brings together hundreds of athletes, distributes record prize money, and utilizes one of the most modern sports facilities in the world, while preserving centuries-old traditions. Participants The main draw for the singles competitions features 128 tennis players in the men's category and another 128 in the women's category , totaling 256 athletes in the individual events alone . In addition, the tournament hosts players in the men's doubles, women's doubles, mixed doubles, junior, and wheelchair categories, bringing the total number of participants to over 700 athletes throughout the two weeks of competition. Before the main draw, hundreds of other players compete in the qualifying tournament, seeking the last available spots for the main competition. Competition The tournament system is a knockout format . In each round, the winners advance and the losers are eliminated. In singles matches, men and women go through seven rounds until the champion is decided: first round, second round, third round, round of 16, quarterfinals, semifinals, and final. This format, used for decades, ensures that only the most consistent athlete throughout the tournament wins the prestigious Wimbledon trophy. Awards Beyond its sporting prestige, Wimbledon will offer the largest prize money in its history in 2026. The tournament will distribute a total of £64.2 million , approximately 20% more than the previous edition. The champions of the men's and women's singles draws will each receive £3.6 million , while the runners-up will be entitled to £1.8 million . Semi-finalists will receive £900,000 , quarter-finalists £480,000 , athletes eliminated in the round of 16 £300,000 , in the third round £185,000 , in the second round £126,000 , and even players eliminated in the first round will receive £80,000 , demonstrating the high financial value of the professional circuit. Highlights Besides the substantial prize money, Wimbledon 2026 brings together some of the biggest names in world tennis. In the men's draw, Italian Jannik Sinner , currently ranked number 1 in the world , stands out as one of the main contenders for the title. Also among the favorites are Serbian Novak Djokovic , seven-time Wimbledon champion, German Alexander Zverev , American Taylor Fritz , and Canadian Félix Auger-Aliassime , all present in the main draw. In the women's competition, Belarusian Aryna Sabalenka, the number 1 seed, leads the list of favorites. Also among the top contenders are Polish player Iga Świątek , the current Wimbledon champion, Kazakh Elena Rybakina , the 2022 champion, American Coco Gauff , and American Jessica Pegula , all confirmed in the tournament's main draw. Structure The structure is supported by one of the most complete sports complexes in world tennis. The All England Club has 18 official courts used during the tournament, in addition to several courts exclusively for training. The main one is the historic Centre Court , inaugurated in 1922 and currently with a capacity of approximately 14,979 spectators. It is the most important arena at Wimbledon and the stage for the main matches of the competition, including the men's and women's singles finals. Unlike what the name might suggest, it does not correspond to Court No. 1. This is another arena in the complex, called No. 1 Court , with a capacity of about 12,345 spectators. No. 2 Court , the third largest court in the tournament, accommodates approximately 4,000 people . Both Centre Court and No. 1 Court have retractable roofs , allowing matches to continue even during the frequent rains of the British summer. Tickets Securing a ticket to Wimbledon remains a challenge for fans worldwide. Most tickets are distributed through international lotteries held months before the tournament begins. Another well-known tradition is the so-called " The Queue ," a line organized daily for the sale of a limited number of tickets made available to the public. In 2026, the most affordable tickets are the Grounds Passes , which allow access to the complex and access to matches played on the outside courts, priced between £21 and £33 depending on the day of the tournament. Tickets for Centre Court , where the main matches and finals take place, range from £80 in the first few days and in the most economical sections, up to £350 for the best seats during the singles finals. There are also the traditional debenture tickets, sold separately with exclusive services and privileged seating, whose prices can reach thousands of pounds sterling on the authorized market. Where to watch In Brazil , Wimbledon 2026 is broadcast live on ESPN , on pay television, and on Disney+ , via streaming. In other countries, coverage is provided by broadcasters and platforms licensed by the All England Club, including the BBC (United Kingdom), ESPN/ABC (United States), Sky Sport/NOW (Italy) and, in specific markets, DAZN , according to the broadcasting rights of each country. In the third and final part of this special series, High-Tech Society will explain why grass remains the most challenging surface on the professional circuit and show how this type of court directly influences the playing style of the world's greatest tennis players, in addition to other information. By Luiz Cincurá Founder and Editor High-TechSociety.com Editorial transparency: This article was produced with the support of ChatGPT during the research and preliminary content organization stages. The definition of the editorial approach, critical analysis, technical review, and final writing were carried out by the Editor, who is ultimately responsible for the published content. Sources: Wimbledon – The Championships (Official Website). Accessed on June 30, 2026. All England Lawn Tennis and Croquet Club (AELTC). Accessed on June 30, 2026. ATP Tour. Accessed June 30, 2026. Lawn Tennis Association (LTA). Accessed June 30, 2026.

Watch this beautiful drum cover performance, a rendition of “DNA,” played by a drummer recreating the original drum track from the recording. “DNA,” the official anthem of the 2026 FIFA World Cup, was performed at the opening ceremony of the 2026 FIFA World Cup by Andrea Bocelli and EJAE, held at Azteca Stadium in Mexico on June 11, 2026. Bocelli, one of the most renowned tenors in contemporary classical music, is recognized worldwide for his established career and the power of his vocal performance. EJAE, a Korean-American artist who works as a singer, songwriter, and music producer, has won an Oscar, a Grammy, and a Golden Globe. She won all three awards for her work on the song “Golden” (from the soundtrack of the animated film K-Pop Demon Hunters). David Guetta, although he did not perform live on stage, is one of the co-writers and producers of the track, contributing directly to the musical creation of the official anthem for the 2026 FIFA World Cup.