Issue Analysis No.05
April 13, 2007

SURVEYS: NOT JUST A MATTER OF VOTERS’ BETS

The pre-election surveys (PES) conducted by the country’s leading pollsters show the voting preferences of the country’s electorate in the May 14 mid-term elections. Conducted regularly since October last year, the surveys done by the Social Weather Stations (SWS), Pulse Asia and, to some extent, the non-profit IBON, showed opposition candidates for the senatorial race under the Genuine Opposition (GO) pulling away from the administration ticket, Team Unity (TU). Indeed, the latest surveys reveal that between seven to eight opposition candidates, led by Loren Legarda, are the choice of the respondents, with only about two to three administration bets making it. Two independent candidates, Francis Pangilinan and Gregorio Honasan, fill up the rest of the “Magic 12” seats that are up for grabs in the elections.

The surveys also show quite similar trends for the House and local government elections.

Several implications can be inferred from the survey results that show the voting preferences of Filipinos if elections were held today. Definitely, the results will likely create a bandwagon effect especially among voters who remain undecided on whom to vote. Whether, however, the surveys predict conclusively the outcome of the elections or are translatable into actual votes remains speculative since, after all, anything can still happen within the next 30 days.

Question is, do the surveys serve any purpose? As a means of scientifically weighing the public pulse, the surveys on voting preferences are useful; a few administration candidates admit that the results are a wake-up call to them. For what reasons the respondents decide on their choice of candidates are not reflected in the surveys, however. Using a representative sample numbering from at least 1,200 to 1,800 respondents chosen nationwide and conducted in a week’s time, the surveys normally use face-to-face interviews in asking respondents their preferred candidates. Otherwise, respondents who are chosen randomly are asked to fill in sample ballots.

The official results and news releases of the pollsters reveal only the names of candidates picked by the respondents, their rankings and percentages of the votes. Since what made the respondent determine his or her choice of candidate is not indicated, it is safe to say that questions dealing on such a significant matter were probably not included in the surveys. But, definitely, it is even plausible to say that many respondents had their own different reasons for preferring one candidate over another – a decision which, unfortunately, neither the press nor the public would be able to know.

Insofar as they signified voting trends and projections, the surveys seem credible enough. Not only were the findings especially of the SWS and Pulse Asia showed consistent patterns since late last year, the results of both their surveys appeared to match in the main. Their pre-election findings in 2001 and 2004 that the party-list group Bayan Muna was leading in the party-list race turned out to be prophetic based on the outcome of the election. Both groups also said that their surveys were done independently, i.e., they were not commissioned by any interest group or political party.

Arroyo

Moreover, the results of the surveys are a barometer of public perceptions about the Arroyo administration and the President herself. That the opposition candidates for the Senate – as well as in the elections for the House and local government seats – are leading in the PES may suggest undercurrents of opinion - or is actually a “protest vote” - against the present administration. In this context, the recent survey findings mirror previous public surveys that rated the performance of Arroyo as the lowest among sitting presidents since Marcos. Indeed, the May 2004 fraudulent elections are still fresh in the minds of many Filipinos today and the clamor for her removal remains strong among them. It is not surprising, therefore, that the likes of former Chief of Staff Michael Defensor, who has been closely identified with Mrs. Arroyo and who is otherwise known nationally, may not even make it in the Senate race. Yet, again, all these are conjectural and a mere political reading of the statistical results.

This is the reason why the current surveys are a far cry from what should be a more comprehensible way of determining the whys and wherefores of the voting preferences based on quantifiable results.* Is Loren Legarda, for instance, the respondents’ top choice because of name recall, personality or winnability? Or, was she chosen by 60 percent of the respondents, according to the recent surveys, because of her known record of leadership and performance?

Studies commissioned by the Ateneo University in recent years try to answer the demand for explaining and putting substance into current surveys that are limited to measuring voting preferences. The Ateneo studies showed that voters particularly the youth respond to a host of issues and look for certain qualities in their choice of leaders such as “sincerity,” being pro-people and being able to “deliver on promises.” The surveys also suggested that politicians would be better off refraining from conducting their campaign on personalities and start talking about real issues. They also revealed public perceptions that no group, except for two traditional political parties and the progressive Bayan Muna, can qualify as a real political party in terms of articulating visions and clear electoral platform.

----------------------
* Pulse Asia tried to remedy this by conducting a survey on April 3-5 to measure the trust ratings of the senatorial candidates.

Since surveys are a public service and do influence public behavior in the long run, it is about time that future studies are designed to allow the voters to think and speak up their minds in consonance with the level of voters’ political maturity and awareness that has remained untapped. Surveys can be done where respondents are allowed to choose their leaders based not on name recall or image, but on issues and election platforms. Then we can see who really deserves to be voted into office. Then, we can start talking about democratizing the elections. Of course, this is just a beginning in the grueling efforts to reform the country’s flawed and much-discredited electoral system.

(BACK TO TOP)