We really need to change our attitude about our elections and, more important, about the results. Or we need to have hard facts to back up some of the negative perceptions that sometimes border on being a conspiracy theory.
“Preelection surveys condition the voter to expect a certain result.” That is true to a certain extent based on very narrow studies, most done before the explosion of social media. When one candidate has a strong lead, there is the tendency to vote for the apparent winner.
However, the studies were made in countries where voters cast a ballot for a political party rather than a particular candidate—regardless of party—as in a Parliamentary system. This is the “bandwagon” effect.
Some studies have shown that “lazy” voters may not go to the polls if they think their candidate is a sure winner. In the 2016 US Presidential election, Hillary Clinton was given a 90-percent chance of winning. But there is no indication at all that this kept Clinton voters from the polls. In fact, it may have motivated Trump voters to come to the ballot box. Therefore, these opinion surveys may actually have the reverse effect of giving support to candidates that are not in the lead rather than condition voters to expect a “sure winner” to actually win.
Studies also have shown that being behind in the polls strengthens the resolve of a candidate’s core voters, who would work harder as the election comes closer. Therefore, as in a race with real horses, it may be better not to be in the lead and yet not to be too far behind. What campaign managers look for is a gradual but steady increase in voter percentage. A candidate whose standing in the polls does not increase over time usually means a voter death sentence.
Another group firmly believes that the outcome of the election is determined by cheating and it doesn’t matter whom the voters select. There is no question that every election virtually in every country is subject to some “miscounting”—if not outright cheating. That may be why the preelection surveys are important. At least there is a benchmark of some sort to judge the final results. The question then is, how accurate are the surveys?
In the past five elections including 2004, 60 senators have been elected. Of the 60 elected senators, only three were not in the “Magic 12” on the final survey. We looked at the polls conducted by Pulse Asia and the final results.
The three candidates not in the survey’s top 12 that were elected were Pia Cayetano in 2004 and Antonio Trillanes IV and Koko Pimentel in 2007. From the top 12 that were not elected were Ernesto “Ernie” Maceda in 2004 and Ralph Recto and Juan Miguel Zubiri in 2007. It must be noted that the 2007 election was controversial as to the Pimentel/Zubiri final placement.
Since 2010, every candidate in the Magic 12 was elected as senator. Perhaps Philippine elections are not as tainted as many would like to think. Perhaps the surveys do reflect genuine voter preference. But one fact is without question: The government must do much more to insure ballot integrity and increase voter confidence.