Great responsibility

Poll surveys once more take the center stage. During election time, they really come out more regularly and more often, especially the poll surveys of leading presidential candidates conducted by SWS and Pulse Asia. Business must really be good for these two leading survey firms in the country at this time especially when there are so many presidential candidates. For, in the usual course of business, they will conduct it and incur expenses because they are hired by some presidential candidates or groups supporting them. The motive here is more for private profit than for public service.

But apparently these survey firms would like to give the impression that they are conducting these surveys for public information purposes. In that case, who pays them? Will they really use their own private funds for public purposes? These questions seem to have been answered by the latest SWS survey, showing a presidential candidate who just filed his certificate of candidacy in the lead. Obviously, surveys are conducted and published at the instance of a candidate or his/her backers if the results are favorable. Such practice really has an adverse effect on the free and intelligent exercise of the right of suffrage.

Of course some of us may disagree with these results, but we cannot prevent these firms from airing or publishing them even if they are not accurate. The Supreme Court has already ruled that these two pollsters are just exercising their freedom of expression. But like other rights they must be exercised with utmost responsibility to the electorate rather than to a particular candidate. So a law must be passed on this matter especially during elections. Or, at the very least, the Comelec should come out with rules and regulations ensuring that the methods used by the surveyors are scientific and reliable enough to reflect correct and accurate results.  

To be sure surveys are very useful in feeling the people’s pulse on many other issues and happenings in society other than politics. They certainly help in the decision-making process of those who are affected. In the political arena, on the other hand, surveys admittedly have some good and bad effects, some advantages and disadvantages to the candidates, to the electorate and to the nation.

Periodic surveys conducted with systematic and scientific accuracy, are useful to candidates because they: (1) help them in determining voter preferences as their campaign progresses; (2) show them how effective are their campaign strategies and thus enable them to change tactics for better chances of winning; or (3) help them gauge their chances of winning for purposes of deciding whether or not to continue with their candidacies or withdraw from the race.

To the nation especially the electorate, however, surveys are less useful and more disadvantageous. First of all it is obvious that the results of these surveys are generally based on the popularity or name recall of the candidates. Candidates already well known because of media exposure, or the movie and sports celebrities and those who have tremendous amount of money to spend for costly ads that project themselves more than their qualifications and programs, will definitely rate higher or even lead in the surveys. Thus the taking of these polls promotes politics of personality rather than politics of principles. It can even be said that it is because of these surveys that candidates now employ campaign tactics and propagandas which are in violation of election laws to make them and their names well known and easily recalled by the voters.

The second adverse effect of the surveys is that it deprives the voters of the chance to determine and find out whether the candidates are really qualified or who among them are most suitable and capable for the positions as far as experience, integrity and mental, physical and spiritual backgrounds are concerned. This is the primary reason behind the inept and corrupt government we now have.  People deserve this kind of government we now have.  People deserve this kind of government only if they were given the chance to examine the qualifications and the moral background of these officials and they still elect them. But mainly because of these surveys, the voters have not been fully afforded such opportunity.

And perhaps the most harmful effect of these surveys is the trending or the bandwagon effect that they can create. This is dangerous because candidates may use them to win the elections even if the voters may have already decided about their initial preferences for particular candidates based on the latter’s qualifications. One of the unfortunate features in our elections is that voters have tendencies to still choose candidates who are sure winners over more qualified candidates they have initially chosen because they believe they will just be wasting their votes on their preferred candidates.

In the coming elections therefore, the different survey outfits conducting polls should take into consideration these disadvantages and adverse effects as part of their responsibilities. Even if they are commissioned by certain candidates, they must see to it that, in feeling the peoples’ pulse, they will be objective enough and earnestly use scientific methods which are really accurate and reliable. They must be transparent in every aspect of the survey and allow the public to know what they are doing every step of the way. They should formulate their questionnaires objectively and avoid leading the respondents to some desired or preferable answers. They should always bear in mind and repeatedly emphasize that they are merely predicting the possible outcome of elections based on a sampling of a minimum percentage of voters.  And most of all, they should limit their surveys and refrain from conducting them a few weeks or days before the election as to influence the voters. An exit poll should be enough.

* * *

 Email: [email protected]