To vote or not to vote

It was good to have been invited to Ric Carandang’s "The Big Picture" to talk about the stakes in the May elections. It turns out that all of us, Ric himself, Manolo Quezon and Rene Azurin had misgivings on the coming elections. Issues were not being articulated and covering the campaign seemed a waste of time. In the end, we returned to our own advocacy issues, Manolo for human rights, Rene for removing pork barrel and I for Charter change. Strangely, these concerns whether the candidates were for or against them were not being addressed.

I had perhaps the strongest motivation not to vote. These elections were used to stop Charter change and its advocates remonstrated it would be immoral if it were not held before a plebiscite. That is the pity. We would have had less to complain about the intellectual deficiency that pervades this election if we were voting instead for members of parliament who are known to their constituencies. Why complain about the quality of senatorial candidates? Why complain with the dearth of issues that both the candidates and the voters could latch on?

It is a contest of money and popularity and the candidates cannot be blamed for that because that is what the system demands. As far as I am concerned my conscience tells me I cannot justify voting for senators on the basis of unacceptable standards. The conversation brought out that increasing numbers of the middle class are now talking of an "informal boycott". It is neither organized nor publicly ventilated to influence others as the extreme left did during the fateful 1986 elections but it is there being whispered among friends.

In my case, not voting is an act of conscience and definitely something not to hide or be ashamed of. Before the show began, I told the group that even if I felt that way I would not say this publicly in a television show. Yet as our conversation progressed on how dissatisfied we were with the entire electoral enterprise unfolding before us, I was forced to say it anyway. The choice was whether this is something I should say or not say and it is the former that won over because it was consistent with Charter change advocacy. Anything less would smack of the hypocrisy that permeates this ‘you gotta vote’ mentality. However I was careful to give a slight opening in case Charter change should be resurrected after the elections. The chances were better with government candidates than it would be with the opposition.

I am not optimistic. It is clear that the election was used to foreclose any such hope. With the campaign costs running into billions, it would be foolish to expect that the winners will give up their hard-earned and hard won senatorial posts. Since the do-gooders have insisted on these elections before a plebiscite on Charter change they should carry the burden of guilt. I am uneasy that some members of the church and the laity are at it again, preaching that it is ‘moral’ to vote but carefully omitting that they hope it would be a referendum against GMA and that she would finally be ousted as they have machinated since the Garci tapes. Incidentally, it is not surprising that the extrajudicial killings should be in the news with elections just around the corner. They hope that voters will be angry enough to vote against her. The timing is impeccable.

Should we or should we not vote? Use your conscience. That is the bottomline of my decision and that is neither a sin nor treason. Until the show I was very intrigued by RR [email protected] who wrote he will sit out the election. "Or at the very least I will abstain from voting for any candidate for Senator. I have been through this several times and I will no longer be a party to the perpetuation of an unproductive and increasingly irrelevant Senate. It is bad enough that graft and corruption is cutting into my hard-earned taxes; seeing it going to waste in full view on institutional wastrels sticks painfully in my craw. I just hope that Charter change resumes and gets done right and quickly after this circus. I want to see a more cost effective and better run legislature in my lifetime, one that is less beholden to national power brokers." If I thought his was a voice in the wilderness, it is no longer.

Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner’s ‘Freakonomics (A rogue economist explores the hidden side of everything) say as much. They agree with economist Patricia Fund that a rational individual should abstain from voting. To them there is no good economic rationale and cited studies to prove that a single vote will not alter the results. On the contrary "the closer the elections are, it is almost never the case that a single vote is pivotal." Worse, the closer an election is the more likely that its outcome will be taken out of the voters’ hands. They cite the US 2000 presidential race when Supreme Court justices Kennedy, O’Connor, Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas ultimately decided the winner of the election.

The launching of ‘Bulletin of FVR ‘Sermons’ gathered friends, former officials and Lakas-CMD stalwarts at the 47th floor of the Yuchengco building Thursday night. Ramos is the honorary chairman of the majority party. I thought it was good of the former president to single out Speaker Jose de Venecia in his pep talk which should dispel rumors that all was not well with the two pillars of Lakas. The third of course is President GMA. Sorry to disappoint rumormongers of a rift between the Pangasinenses. When FVR called out Speaker JDV’s name, asking where he was, out came his voice from the top of the stairs in the crowded room, and cried "here I am." That is a good portent.

My e-mail is [email protected]