MindaNews / 5 May — “The inclusion of election surveys in the list of items regulated by the Fair Election Act is a recognition that election surveys are not a mere descriptive aggregation of data. Publishing surveys are a means to shape the preference of voters, inform the strategy of campaign machineries, and ultimately, affect the outcome of elections. Election surveys have a similar nature as election propaganda. They are expensive, normally paid for by those interested in the outcome of elections, and have tremendous consequences on election results.”
The foregoing passage is found in Social Weather Stations, Inc. and Pulse Asia, Inc. vs. Commission on Elections [G.R. No. 208062, April 07, 2015]. And it is an opportune time to remind the electorate how the Supreme Court views election surveys as they are again front and center in the public discourse. Fundamentally, it is to be treated as a form of election propaganda. Maybe not a tool specifically intended for partisan politics but certainly a contributor to some degree to the polarization within the electorate.
But let’s set it straight: election surveys are snapshots, not gospel. They are a momentary pulse, not a crystal ball. Although in the hands of spin doctors, media hacks, and political mercenaries, they become weapons— means to condition public opinion, kill momentum, and crown “inevitable winners” long before a single vote is cast. They can no longer be avoided, but voters need to see election surveys for what they truly are. Specifically, how it causes more harm than good for our political culture.
Survey firms like SWS and Pulse Asia are part of the electoral landscape but they are not complete villains here. The data they provide are useful—to a point. Election survey results are essentially shallow. They tell us what people think at a superficial level, but the motivations, fears, frustrations, and hopes driving voter sentiment remain buried, unseen. Election surveys do not offer any insight into the nuances percolating in the minds of voters. Hence, it seems irrational for the electorate to put so much value on survey results.
Indeed, if we want to have a more enlightened electorate—and a stronger democracy—we need to demand better tools. Maybe it is time to consider deliberative polling, where people are given real information and time to think before being surveyed. Imagine if voters were asked what they believe after they’ve had a real chance to weigh platforms, not just personalities. If this were the case, then election surveys would be truly reflective of public sentiment.
Sadly, our obsession with election surveys has also trapped us in zero-sum political thinking. It is always “us vs them,” “DDS vs Dilawan,” “pink vs red.” There is no thought about finding common ground, no inclination to appeal to the better angels of our nature. And because voters are battered by propaganda and strangled by disinformation, there is very little room left for reflection. Political discourse during the campaign becomes too toxic to help voters make the most optimal decision at the polling booth.
But a profoundly egregious consequence of the heavy reliance on surveys is how it nurtures the obsession with personalities over principles. Election surveys condition the public to think of elections not as a contest of ideas but as a battle of charisma and celebrity. And the “celebritification” of political office makes the notion of “track record” to mean little more than name recall. Campaigning has become a race to the bottom for clicks and likes. As it is now, election surveys sustain personality-based politics.
In fact, one survey firm has endeavored to categorize the polity as Pro-Marcos, Pro-Duterte, and “independents.” Such simplistic classification could actually be a true reflection of the current political landscape. It is certainly possible that our politics is this vulgar and one-dimensional. But it is still very disconcerting when survey firms treat it as an inexorable condition. Begging the question, is personality-based politics now really part of our political DNA and we just have to live with it?
Election surveys have become kingmakers more than mirrors of the public will. While theoretically they can inform and guide democratic discourse, in practice, they often skew it—benefiting those already in power and allowing political dynasties to dominate elections. Sadly, in their current form, election surveys will continue to undermine rather than enhance democratic quality in the Philippines. Civil society must reverse this alarming trend. Even if survey firms seem to be unbothered by it.
(MindaViews is the opinion section of MindaNews. Michael Henry Yusingco, LL.M is a law lecturer, policy analyst and constitutionalist)
0 Comments