DEMAREE J.B. RAVAL
Surveys from Quiapo
Sunday, 01 24, 2010
When a consistent frontrunner in the surveys suddenly slams the results of the latest SWS survey that shows his points to be slipping while his opponents are catching up, you could be sure there has been some sort of manipulation that went with that frontrunner’s surveys. Perhaps Senator Noynoy Aquino knows how he got his astronomical numbers in the previous surveys and how the unbelievably low numbers that the rest of the presidential candidates got were arrived at.
The yawning gap in qualifications and performance between Noynoy and the rest of the presidential aspirants should give Noynoy the least numbers in any survey, but the survey results show the reverse. Indeed, the surveys he gloated about could have been sourced from Quiapo, that place where everything fake and dubious could be bought.
In the surveys in the run-up to the May 2004 elections, then neophyte senator Noli de Castro — with nothing yet to prove his worth as a senator — had sensibly counted himself out of the race for president despite his consistent lead in the surveys. At that time, de Castro’s topping the surveys was a miracle in itself. Why, indeed, should de Castro be leading when he had nothing to show for? The self-fulfilling result of surveys was proven wrong by de Castro’s withdrawal from the presidential race, exposing the lack of a solid base of respondents who know how to choose intelligently or make their preference based on qualifications and performance. [At least, Noynoy claims to have been instrumental in making the Nike brand tremendously popular. But can he defend that in Plaza Miranda in Quiapo? My friend Michael Jordan would certainly object.]
Which makes one wonder: what methodology, scientific or not, goes into the conduct of surveys?
The standards for acceptable surveys are well defined. They are supposed to refer to the measurement of opinions and perceptions of the voters with regard to a candidate’s popularity, qualifications, and platforms, including the voter’s preferences for candidates. But these standards seem to be woefully missing in the surveys. Then again, what results does one expect if the surveys could be bought from Quiapo? It’s like buying one of those Santo Niño images from hawkers at Plaza Miranda and ascribing everything favorable that happens as a miracle from Bro.
Survey results these days give rise to many questions that require answers which defy the very numbers they present. For example, a drop of mere 5 points in Noynoy’s numbers is not congruent with the magnitude of his faux pas over the SCTex Scam, his arrogance towards the tailenders, the unquestionable data on his lack of performance as legislator, his cop-out from the presidential debates, or his own claim that surveys could be bought from Quiapo, which should put the so-called respectable survey outfits in revenge mode. And, always, the survey results always beg the question: How come the numbers do not add up?
A survey that preys on the respondent’s gullibility — or his propensity to make a choice without considering the candidates’ credentials or actual performance — is hardly one that educates the public on the importance of making good choices. Surveys of this sort rely on the certainty that a predetermined set of respondents will unerringly pick one among a set of choices. In that case, either the outfit has been bought to come up with figures that would confirm a predetermined conclusion, or that the outfit had started on the ugly premise that notwithstanding the choices made by the respondents, the conclusion must be supported at all costs.
.
The surveys that really count are those that never see print and are used exclusively to guide the drift of the campaign. The survey results that see print —flaunted by those favored by the results — should be viewed for what they really are: no better than tailor-made propaganda and, therefore, must never be the imprimatur on a candidate’s ability to win or predisposition to lose.
That the pollsters get paid large chunks of money in order to conduct surveys already militates against the validity of the survey results or of a fair reading of the conclusions derived from the figures generated.
We have witnessed results of surveys conducted on the same set of respondents answering the same set of questions posed by different survey outfits. Why the different outfits should come up with different results — after they admitted they used the same methodology — is in itself confusing. It does not lend to an intelligent discussion on where our preferences are drifting, and to what extent the greater mass of the public who did not participate in the surveys is going to be swayed by the purported results.
That the pollsters get paid large chunks of money in order to conduct surveys already militates against the validity of the survey results or of a fair reading of the conclusions derived from the figures generated.
We have witnessed results of surveys conducted on the same set of respondents answering the same set of questions posed by different survey outfits. Why the different outfits should come up with different results — after they admitted they used the same methodology — is in itself confusing. It does not lend to an intelligent discussion on where our preferences are drifting, and to what extent the greater mass of the public who did not participate in the surveys is going to be swayed by the purported results.
.
And it baffles the mind that the preferences of 2,500 respondents are allowed to speak for 45 million voters. Scientific (as the pollsters claim they are) or not, a conclusion derived out of this miniscule segment of the population does not carry any weight to make the rest of those uninformed and uninvolved in the surveys to go along with the results. It only tends to confuse and does not reflect intelligent choices at all.
Voters are intelligent, however varied their yardstick in making choices may be. But there is a thin line between intelligent voting and rat-pack voting, the latter being the kind that seems to be promoted by most surveys and which causes a great disservice to the electorate. To regulate the use of surveys, the Fair Elections Act (Republic Act No. 9006) prohibits the publication of survey results 15 days before the election for national candidates. This, however, is anti-climactic; it comes too late after previous slanted surveys had already inflicted harm on the voting populace.
Good candidates who do not figure in the surveys get waylaid, ambushed and routed; they drop out of the race, simply because the pollsters have said they cannot win, a proclamation that the media invariably gobble up and sensationalize. The poor good candidates lose early. The candidates who figure prominently in the surveys — for many millions of reasons, but who nonetheless could not hold a torch to those good candidates who have been slaughtered by the surveys — go on unhampered in the race and slug it out until election day.
This is the disservice these surveys give us; they force a decision for the voters, but most often the kind that brings disaster to our governance.
Voters are intelligent, however varied their yardstick in making choices may be. But there is a thin line between intelligent voting and rat-pack voting, the latter being the kind that seems to be promoted by most surveys and which causes a great disservice to the electorate. To regulate the use of surveys, the Fair Elections Act (Republic Act No. 9006) prohibits the publication of survey results 15 days before the election for national candidates. This, however, is anti-climactic; it comes too late after previous slanted surveys had already inflicted harm on the voting populace.
Good candidates who do not figure in the surveys get waylaid, ambushed and routed; they drop out of the race, simply because the pollsters have said they cannot win, a proclamation that the media invariably gobble up and sensationalize. The poor good candidates lose early. The candidates who figure prominently in the surveys — for many millions of reasons, but who nonetheless could not hold a torch to those good candidates who have been slaughtered by the surveys — go on unhampered in the race and slug it out until election day.
This is the disservice these surveys give us; they force a decision for the voters, but most often the kind that brings disaster to our governance.
.
Buy the surveys, then, from Quiapo and let the nation be damned again.
For comments about this website:Webmaster@tribune.net.ph
For comments about this website:Webmaster@tribune.net.ph
