Why we should not take surveys seriously

SURE WINNER?: Concern was expressed by a number of readers reacting to our Postscript of April 25 calling attention to propaganda that the only way Candidate X, who thinks he is a sure winner, to lose is for him to be cheated.

This explains why Candidate X has been priming the public for taking to the streets — in a clumsy rerun of EDSA 1986 — to grab back the victory that he claims will be snatched from him.

He was leaning heavily on the reports of survey firms claiming to have interviewed some 2,000 individuals on their presidential preferences.

I was pleasantly surprised to find with the email in my inbox a note from Celia Laurel, the widow of the late Vice President Doy Laurel. She must have been so aggravated by the propaganda that she took time to write.

*   *   *

SABI NI CELIA: “I was reminded of the 1949 presidential elections, when it was widely perceived that Jose P. Laurel was cheated. Furious Batangueños led by leaders like Col. Poling Valeriano and Francisco Medrano wanted to start a revolt in protest.

“But Dr. Laurel calmed them down saying ‘The presidency is not worth a revolution. — I don’t want to go down in history as the man who plunged the country into a bloody revolution that turned it into a banana republic.’

“At a more recent occasion — the EDSA Revolution to be precise — it is said that when Gen. Fabian Ver begged President Marcos to allow him to fire at the mammoth crowd that had congregated on EDSA, Marcos vehemently objected to the plan and forbade Ver to take any drastic action that would hurt the people even if they were rallying against him and could unseat him.

“Both leaders showed nobility of character and a true and selfless love of country.

“Today things are quite the opposite. As you said: ‘The line being developed is that Candidate X is a sure winner by all indications, including surveys. The only way he can lose is if he is cheated. When cheated, people should take to the streets to claim the victory snatched from him.’

“We are warned that ‘People Power’ would take place.

“As you wrote, ‘this is dangerous and irresponsible.’ Indeed it is! It is obvious they don’t care what happens to our people as long as they have their way.

“EDSA I was a brief shining moment in our history. It was hailed and marveled at throughout the world because it was an uncanny spiritual experience — a revolution — achieved through peace, goodwill and prayers. It was a moment that should always live in our hearts.

“But is ‘People Power 2010’ intended to be peaceful as well? Or is it a dismal foreboding that we shall witness a grim reenactment of the carnage that took place in the Mendiola and Dona Luisita massacres IF we don’t make Candidate X win?”

*   *   *

TINY SAMPLE: Voters should ignore surveys on presidential preferences, which are useful only to candidates who employ them to condition the minds of voters who do not know any better.

How can a tiny sample of 2,000 unidentified individuals picked at random represent the sovereign wish of a universe of more than 50 million voters?

We have seen how difficult it is for a president elected by a mere plurality of 33 percent (instead of a democratic majority of 50 percent-plus-1), to unite this fractious nation and govern effectively.

What more of the tentative choice of a minuscule .004 percent of the electorate? Yes, .004 percent is what 2,000 interviewees out of 50 million voters represent.

That is assuming it is true that field workers actually interviewed 2,000 respondents within two or three working days. Do you know of anybody who has been interviewed for a survey?

No wonder, some candidates consistently leading in surveys had actually lost in past presidential elections and some of those trailing in the polls won in the final official count!

*   *   *

HETEROGENOUS FIELD: Another reason why 2,000 individuals cannot represent 50 million voters is that the population is not homogenous. It is heterogenous, stratified into half-dozen economic classes distributed among more than 7,000 islands.

Then each class and sub-class is different from the others on the basis of various criteria. Having various needs and expectations, they respond differently to stimuli.

There are also the “command votes” that are not, and cannot be, reflected, in the superficial surveys. How does one factor into the survey, for instance, the Iglesia ni Cristo, the Marcos vote, the Quiboloy flock, the bailiwicks of the local warlords, et cetera?

*   *   *

SURVEY VS ELECTION: If surveys were a reliable gauge of public preferences, why do we still hold national elections that cost at least P15 billion per shot?

With just P5 million (make that P25 million just to be sure), this poor nation can commission a survey to determine with supposed precision who should be president, vice president, and senators.

Having chosen by survey the national leaders, we can then prepare a much smaller budget for choosing by the usual exciting election the local officials — congressmen, governors, vice governors, board members, mayors and councilors.

We still have to conduct elections because the members of this largely feudal society will revolt being deprived their usual political circus that makes them feel they are King for the day

And then, paano na ang mga election commissioners? Some of them make money only once every three years, when there are elections. It would be cruel to withdraw that sideline and upset their budget.

*   *   *

ePOSTSCRIPT: Read current and old POSTSCRIPTs at www.manilamail.com. Email feedback to [email protected]