Beware of Political Surveys

By Herbert Vego

THIS writer has always doubted the credibility of “scientific” pre-election surveys. Since that’s where pollsters like SWS and Pulse Asia make money from, whom would they “bless” but the candidates of the survey sponsors?

I agree with the late Senator Miriam Santiago, one of the five presidential candidates in the May 9, 2016 election. In her speech before the students of the University of the Philippines-Visayas in Iloilo City on April 14, 2016, she wondered why she was placing last in the surveys pitting five presidential candidates – Rodrigo Duterte, Mar Roxas, Grace Poe, Jejomar Binay, and herself.

However, her good news was that she had topped the mock elections participated in by college students. Among the leading schools where she bagged the majority votes were the University of the Philippines (U.P.) Los Baños, 86 percent; U.P. Baguio, 78.2 percent; Philippine Normal University, 76 percent; and De La Salle University Manila, 75 percent; University of Santo Tomas, 66 percent; Polytechnic University of the Philippines, 64 percent; Adamson University, 64 percent; Colegio de San Juan de Letrán, 58.5 percent; and Malayan Colleges Laguna, 54.7 percent.

The campus mock elections squared with surveys done by Radyo Veritas nationwide.

Among the senatorial candidates who campaigned in Iloilo City for the 2016 senatorial election were the late Maria Susana “Toots” Ople and lawyer Lorna Kapunan, who revealed having rejected an offer to be included in the senatorial survey in exchange for a fee.

When the smoke of the battle had cleared, the final tally showed the same ordinal rankings that the surveys had shown, prompting now President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. (at that time the vice-presidential running mate of Santiago who lost to Leni Robredo) to denounce the Commission on Elections (Comelec) and Smartmatic (automation technology provider) for “electronic cheating”.

Today, I strongly feel that the mind-conditioning surveys on confirmed senatorial candidates have taken off.  While I was viewing DZRH radio-TV the other day, the screen bared the face of broadcaster Deo Macalma announcing that they had released the result of their first pre-election senatorial survey.

He mentioned the names of the first three frontrunners, namely Rep. Erwin Tulfo, 64.7%; former Senate President Vicente “Tito” Sotto III, 54.9%; and broadcaster Bienvenido “Ben” Tulfo with 50.3%.

At that point, I switched off my radio, no doubt because I could not believe that two more Tulfos would soon join their brother Raffy in the Senate for a three-cornered dynasty.

Anyway, I completed my displeasure by “googling” the rest of the 12 survey leaders, namely Panfilo Lacson, Manny Pacquiao, Manuel “Lito” Lapid, Pia Cayetano, Bong Revilla, Camille Villar, Willie Revillame, Abigail Binay and Ronald “Bato” dela Rosa.

There was no explanation given why the “7,510 respondents from 300 barangays nationwide” would prefer the aforementioned. Four of them are Senate re-electionists, three comebackers, and five first-timers.

On the other hand, News 5’s survey places Erwin and Ben Tulfo on first and second, followed by Sen. Bong Go, former Senate President Tito Sotto, Sen. Pia Cayetano and Sen. Bong Revilla.

As reported by Business World, the Tulfo brothers are also on top of Tangere’s survey, followed by Sotto, Go, Cayetano, Pacquiao, Lacson, Binay, Secretary of the Interior and Local Government Benjamin C. Abalos, Jr., Rep. Rodante D. Marcoleta, reelectionists Lito Lapid and Francis N. Tolentino.

Anyway, I myself find it hard to fathom the reliability of those surveys. I shudder at the prospect of “criminal candidates” winning in accordance with the surveys.

Obviously, these early surveys with unidentified respondents are paid “advertorials” that are amplified in all the streamline and social media for maximum exposure.

Hence, their periodic repetitions and amplifications tend to forecast the eventual outcome of elections and the people won’t mind. To quote World War II Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels, “Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth.”