I still do not see the logic used by the SWS in asking respondents to mention three choices for president instead of just one. In the real universe we are in, voters only get to choose one of the candidates.
On the basis of asking voters to choose three names, the SWS then proceeded to rank the candidates in the same manner they are ranked by other surveys that asked voters to choose only one name. This created all the misleading headlines we saw yesterday. Much of our media mistook the three-name SWS survey as an actual voter preference poll.
Consequently, the rankings suggested Grace Poe leading other contenders by a mile. Mar Roxas edged out erstwhile survey leader Jojo Binay by a statistically insignificant margin and was reported as the second placer. If we add up the preference share of the three leading contenders, we get 129% – obviously a statistical impossibility.
I could understand that, in a universe where we had 30 or 40 potential presidential contenders, asking voters for three preferred names might work. It would give the pollster a rough idea of comparative voter attractiveness of the various potential candidates.
In a situation, however, where the three leading candidates have already declared their intention to seek the presidency, the methodology applied by the SWS might mislead more than enlighten the public.
It is conceivable, for instance, that everybody’s third choice will appear to be the survey front-runner. In actual elections, however, voters rarely get to their third choices.
In an unusual turn of events, voters might be constrained to go for their second choices. More often than not, the third choice is an unused option. I fail to grasp SWS decision to give second- and third-choices equal weight as the first.
At any rate, of the three declared presidential contenders, Mar Roxas overwhelmingly outspent everybody else in paid political ads. He has, after all, the advantage of a fat war chest.
The flurry of political ads was timed precisely to improve perceptions of Mar’s ability to win. The massive “air war” failed miserably in denying Grace Poe a commanding survey lead and only managed to statistically tie Binay’s share even if the latter spent nothing in political advertising.
If I were lead strategist for any of the budding presidential campaigns, the SWS numbers will be thoroughly useless as a guide to evolving strategy and tactics. It measures name recall and not much else. It gives us no idea why voters would choose one candidate over the next.
The best information in designing a strategy are poll numbers that pit the probable contenders head-to-head. In actual elections, voters are forced to make hard choices until they finally cast a vote for one or the other, all imperfections considered. The SWS survey does not make respondents the hard decision-making voters do when they actually choose a preferred candidate. The respondents are allowed to just give the three names of the most obvious persons angling for the highest post.
In the real world, even the survey numbers are rough estimates. They are used to provide the basis for more specific interrogation of voter preference by way of focused group discussions (FGDs). The FGDs, in turn, enable campaign strategists spot weaknesses and strengths among the actual contenders and sway the voting public one way or the other.
Because of questions about the methodology applied, the SWS survey is probably not worth the confusion it generated.
43
September 23, 1972 is the real date the nation became aware the old, ineffectual republic was being dismantled and a dictatorship inaugurated.
Ferdinand E. Marcos was deep into numerology. His earthshaking proclamation of martial law was antedated, according to the most common political lore, only because 21 is a number divisible by 7.
Commemorating a fake date as a historical landmark has been one of those things that perturb our remembering. We are asked to recall what we were doing on the 21st instead of the 23rd.
Sometimes, too, we are told to ask the wrong questions. Those who, like me, suffered the tender mercies of an autocratic state, prefer to remind our people of the cruelties committed. While there is virtue in that, doing so might not be the best approach to commemorating a dramatic episode in our political history.
Forty-three years after martial rule was imposed, I submit our recollection of things might be more usefully disciplined by asking a new set of questions.
For instance, did the old republic deserve to be dismantled?
I am sure now that it did. It was an ineffectual regime under the grip of the oligarchy, a government raped daily by corrupt politicians and a demoralized bureaucracy. It deserved to go.
Was martial rule the best way to dispose of an ineffectual state?
At that time, it was the only way. There was no other force in society quite capable of crushing oligarchic rule and putting the nation on a track of rapid development. Only the sitting president at that time had the will and the aptitude to attempt something potentially revolutionary.
Forty-three years after, have we addressed the problem of oligarchic control of the state and its resultant social decay and ineffectual rule?
This is the saddest question. We are back in square one. Society is as unequal as it has ever been. The oligarchs are firmly in the saddle. Our government is again failing our people as badly as it did when martial rule was proclaimed.
But, unlike 1972, we have no viable option on the table.