(UPDATED) We haven’t decided yet.  At least that’s what can be gleaned from the survey we at the Political Economic Elemental Researchers and Strategists or PEERS conducted from 29 to 31 October.  Can only salute our field workers who braved the typhoon at that time that we were doing the interviews as going to the island provinces especially proved to be tricky.  It is imperative however to hear straight from our countrymen from their place of residence what’s their take on the coming midterm elections.

PEERS did a simultaneous quantitative and qualitative surveys or focused group discussions (FGDs) along with the usual surveys where respondents are just asked to choose or reply yes or no.  The result is almost identical with the FGD we conducted in June.  In general, the voting public is keeping their options open and that whoever they are going to vote will be the result of their own weighing of the candidate/s that’s there to choose from.

They were asked in both FGDs and quantitative survey if they will be influenced by endorsements from either PBBM or FPRRD.  The answers were overwhelming, 9 out ot 10 responded that yes they will of course take note of the endorsements, in the first place, some argued, it is difficult not to notice endorsements made by popular leaders especially presidents.  The ultimate decision on the other hand will remain theirs though as they will be weighing the candidates especially on the basis of background and track record.

Even so, results of many if not all previous elections reflect different considerations.  Popularity is foremost.  In fact, endorsements made by different public personalities and even religious organizations reflect the same consideration, popularity.  It’s a big question then why the people will say, consistently I must add, that they will be voting or have voted on the basis of background and track record.

READ: Reelectionists, returnees banner Marcos Jr senatorial slate

And that’s not the only question we asked to pursue the question how and who they have voted and will be voting this coming election.  We also asked if they are still going to vote for those who have been proven by a court of law to be guilty of crime.  Of course, many of those political leaders who were placed behind bars because at the outset there’s overwhelming evidence against them were eventually freed and acquitted.  Technically then they weren’t proven guilty of the main crime they are accused of, but nonetheless found guilty of a lesser crime.  Despite all these, they are still elected by the people to office.  Such is a curious case to say the least.

This is not the end of it; how people vote includes the question why they have been voting for those who already have relatives in elected positions.  In fact, this coming election pushes this unscrupulous envelope further; many surveys, especially those groups that actually do field work and follow the scientific method, show that voters will be voting for many of the same names, those who already have relatives elected to office and even those running simultaneously.

Goes without saying we have to ask if they will be voting for the same this coming election; those who have relatives already elected in office and those running simultaneously with relatives.  More than 6 out of ten respondents in the quantitative survey and 8 out of ten in the FGDs say they will not be voting for these candidates.  Still the numbers say otherwise, thus begging the question.  If voters will be voting in the way they say they will be voting, we will have a different political scenario no doubt, a much better one in fact.

This is a conundrum for many.  There’s no other explanation to the Filipino’s voting behavior other than there’s not much thinking involved; many have consequently been led to think.  I still refuse to accept though if we factor in the pattern of voting behavior of so many years, not only of the most recent and what seems to be the trajectory of the coming election.  Our people have been carefully studying who they vote for all these years even before the 1987 constitution.  If not, we won’t even have statesmen to remember or revere.

Ever since we have been doing elections, what shows to be the common general consideration of the voting public is educational background.  We have been voting, usually lawyers, doctors and prominent names in various industries, and of course prominent names in politics.  That remained so when we started voting under the 1987 constitution.  In 1989 and 1992, the public voted for those who became popular because of the Edsa revolution.  Many of those elected followed the same pattern as before, electing professionals and or those with what many assume to be the appropriate educational qualification.

This general pattern started to change in 1995 when the people started voting for media personalities.  This could be due to 2 possible reasons, of course this requires a more intensive study to arrive at a more definitive explanation.  One, which to me is most likely, this is the time when the people have started to reflect if there was anything gained after 1986; if there really was change as it was promised by the leaders then.  If there was not much that change, with the many supposedly “qualified” elected leaders, the people started to experiment and considered those who were not necessarily highly educated but ‘seemingly’ offered an alternative.

Two, technology simply became a factor in politics that those whose main claim to leadership qualification was popularity upstaged those who have always dominated politics.  Be that as it may, popularity became the main ticket to elections.  Apart from the media personalities, voters also started voting for those who made their names as officers of the armed forces.  Even actors and actresses who ran for local elective posts also won.  This reached its peak in 1998 when no less than the President was a popular movie actor.

By 2001 and 2004, popularity will no longer be the main consideration of the voters.  Of course, popularity remains a consideration but no longer enough to get a candidate win the election.  Many media personalities especially actors and actresses were not successful in their re-election bids.  Former Senators Freddie Webb and Robert Jaworski were both unable to win re-election.  Edu Manzano won only once as Vice Mayor of Makati in 1998 but subsequent attempts of election, even in different positions were unsuccessful.  Cesar Montano is also a good example of a popular actor who all but attempted but wasn’t chosen by the electorate.

From then on, we have seen how voters have been voting a good mix of politicians with known political stock, with good educational background and track record and popular media personalities.  Since 2004 we have also seen notable names who made their names in business getting elected.  Slowly however, apart from all these characteristics of winning candidates we have seen how political families are becoming more dominant.  This coming election, political leaders have even become brazen, flaunting their running simultaneously with relatives.

There is a disconnect then with the results of our survey.  Respondents say they are not inclined to vote for those who have relatives already in office or especially those running simultaneously but the numbers say otherwise, so this led us to ask the question why.  This is the reason why qualitative surveys need to be conducted along with the usual quantitative surveys.  This is a way to engage the voting public more intensively as they are made to participate in an engaging discussion through a structured questionnaire.  The answers confirm that the problem is the political setup itself.

As I have been explaining ever since, what we have is but simply a political setup.  What we have is but a “makeshift” political arrangement or configuration.  Yes, we had programmatic political parties before, but soonest the waning of colonial conditions, the whole political mechanism was laid bare, it is just plain and simple competition between those who have the wherewithal to take part in politics, archaic as it is comparable to ancient democracies conducting elections.

Comelec urges voters: Do deep dive on candidates following Guo mess

Is it because the public is simply unable to choose the right candidate?  Or should the question be asking if there are in fact enough choices; real choices for the electorate to choose?  The answer to the first question is begging the question as it leads to another question why, and that’s even if it is right to assume that the voters are simply “unable”, that they are not only able to understand what needs to be carefully considered in politics and or that they are simply encumbered by circumstances that they are prevented from making the right choice.

We had to ask the voters themselves.  Why is it that they overwhelmingly declare they won’t be voting for political families, for established dynasties to budding political dynasties but in the end their vote say the opposite?  We also asked why they say they won’t vote for those convicted of crimes but they still won and is likely to still win in the coming elections. They all answered the same, that ultimately it is in the lack of choices.  Quite obviously they can only vote for those they know or at least can presume to know because of popularity including of course an effective campaign to make the public know that they are running and that they are qualified to be public servants.  It’s like the popular saying, people will be drinking anything if there is no water.

People are thus made to choose what they are able to choose.  Only means that the problem is the political setup or lack of a political system that will ensure real choices to be available.  For the coming midterm elections, this means that the people can still change their minds and vote for someone who can catch their attention as an alternative, in fact a better candidate.  This all boil down to effective campaign.  Ultimately, the answer of the people is an indictment of the prevailing political setup, that it requires far-reaching reforms.  We have talked about that in so many occasions and in so many writings in this on-line column.  Meanwhile we can consider the implications of this inherent limitation to the coming midterm elections.

The coming midterm elections is a crucible.  It is a situation of severe trial; trial of the kind of politics we continue to subscribe.  If we do not act and just continue as we have always done ever since, we will continue to see the retrogression of politics and governance in the country.  It is a crucible as different elements, lack of choices, voters still deciding and political families blatantly presenting themselves as if it has already become the norm or even the system itself, interact.  How this is going to play out is something we should not only closely watch but something that requires that we go the extra mile, go out of our way to change the usual inclination.

The numbers bear us out.  If we look at the party list choices, a good many have yet to make their decisions.  This could not be seen in the senatorial choices as voters are made to choose more than 1.  Not all respondents chose a complete slate of 12 senators consistent with the numbers in party list where many have yet to make their choice.  So much can still happen between now and May 2025.  Choices can still change and the list of those who have made it to the winning circle can still change.

Understanding how we vote should be a continuing endeavor for experts and academics.  Changing the system is difficult, in fact bordering on impossible if experience have taught us anything.  Knowing how we vote is an important factor in the whole scheme of things.  It can allow us a way to choose better candidates and ultimately push for that elusive system change.  There is still a way and in fact time to change the course of things, and that is through an effective campaign.

There is no such thing as “bobotante”.  As explained in the foregoing, it is the circumstances, the very limitation inherent in our political setup that prevents the choosing of the right candidates.  The objective then is to make the people know that there are in fact choices; more than that, better choices.  Then perhaps we can see how the public make the crucial decision in May.