Making Sense of Election Surveys

ALTHOUGH SOME candidates have been campaigning since the fourth quarter of 2018, the election period only began officially this month, on January 13. In preparation for the midterm polls in May, security measures, including the setting up of checkpoints and the gun ban are in place.

The official campaign period begins on February 12 for the Senate and party-list groups; and on March 29 for congressmen and local officials.

Philippine elections highlight public opinion surveys, which have become a staple of election coverage as media take note of pollsters’ findings about voter preferences and levels of public awareness about candidates for public office.  

As usual, much of  media’s coverage of the election surveys at the start of this year highlight the horse race aspect of the election, focusing on ranking of  this or that candidate and who’s ahead of whom.  Critics of such publicity for those leading the polls point out that narrowly focused reports on how candidates are doing can and often does, condition the public into voting for the candidates that voters believe are likely to win this May.

Most of media’s coverage in early January focused narrowly, not doing more than listing the names within the circle of the magic number “12.”

Following the Surveys

The following observations are based on a review of coverage of the broadsheets Manila Bulletin, the Philippine Daily Inquirer and The Philippine Star; primetime newscasts 24 Oras (GMA-7), Aksyon (TV5), News Night (CNN Philippines) and TV Patrol (ABS-CBN 2); as well as selected news websites from January 1 to 13, 2019.

On January 9, TV news reported the findings of Pulse Asia’s “Ulat ng Bayan” national survey on the May 2019 senatorial elections. Newspapers followed suit the following day in their January 10 edition. The survey, conducted on December 14 to 21, cited the lead of two incumbent senators, Grace Poe and Cynthia Villar, who are seeking renewal of their terms. The reports also listed the rankings of other candidates in the same poll.

Surveys on local elections, such as the mayoral race in Manila and in Makati, were also reported.

CMFR noted reports published earlier on January 2 by the Bulletin and Star which cited a poll by the Social Weather Stations (SWS), supposedly conducted on December 16 to 19, which also noted Poe’s and Villar’s lead in the senate run.

The said survey, however, did not appear in other newspapers or TV news programs. CMFR did not find this particular poll in the SWS website itself. CMFR asked SWS for information on this particular poll. The SWS representative who took CMFR’s call, Leo Laroza, confirmed that the poll cited in the reports is not in their website, pointing out that they cannot comment on information related to such surveys. So SWS, according to their policy, could not even confirm whether this particular poll was a commissioned poll.

This case highlights the importance of media making clear the source of the survey related news. Such publicity can easily serve the purpose of creating a “bandwagon effect — the impact of such publicity on undecided voters who would be more likely to vote for candidates who rank high in the surveys.

Rote Reporting and More

Most news accounts of survey findings during the monitoring period only reported the rankings of candidates and the candidates’ opinion of the poll results. These did not offer any interpretation as to what the survey results could mean this early in the election season.

Neither did media describe survey methodology: how the surveys were conducted or how the survey questions were presented. Were respondents asked directly who they were going to vote for; were they given a list and asked to rank the names in the list? Were respondents cued with names and asked whether they would vote for the candidates named? How the questions were presented is a crucial aspect of the exercise as these could influence the results.

Unfortunately, such information was limited to sample size of respondents and the dates the surveys were done.

Only TV Patrol deviated from the routine reporting of the surveys. In its January 11 report, the newscast interviewed political science professor Julio Teehankee of the De La Salle University and Ramon Casiple, executive director of the Institute of Political and Electoral Reform asking them to explain what the Pulse Asia survey could mean for the opposition candidates. Both agreed that winning in the elections would be a challenge for the opposition slate, and that their being a government critic could work against them, given President Rodrigo Duterte’s high popularity.

Value of Polling Information

The value of polling information is obvious for candidate-stakeholders as these can flag issues and geographical areas on which they need to invest more campaign resources. For this reason, candidates spend money to find out how well they are doing in the polls.

The public rooting for certain candidates can also use the information and think about ways of improving the chances of their winning.

Influencing Voter Opinion?

A common concern associated with election surveys is their capacity to influence voters. SWS president Mahar Mangahas recalled in a paper he wrote in November 2009 how politicians are often antagonistic toward the idea of revealing poll results, pointing out the power of election surveys “to influence the vote.”

There have been efforts to ban election surveys in the past. In 1998, the Comelec attempted to ban exit polls for that year’s presidential elections. ABS-CBN, which partnered with the SWS for the exercise, petitioned for a temporary restraining order to allow them to proceed, which the Supreme Court (SC) granted. The order was later made permanent in 2000 after the Court ruled that exit polls “form part of free expression and are entitled to constitutional protection.”

In 2001, an anti-survey Senate bloc succeeded in incorporating an election survey ban in a new Fair Election Act, which originally sought to lift election advertising in media. Section 5.4 of the law banned the publication of surveys fifteen days before national elections and seven days before local elections. SWS and the Manila Standard petitioned the SC to nullify the provision because it is a violation of freedom of expression. The SC ruled that it indeed was unconstitutional.

Mangahas recalled these landmark rulings in the same paper, emphasizing that election surveys are protected by the constitutional guarantee of freedom of expression.

This year on January 21, a senatorial candidate lagging in the polls filed a petition with the Commission on Elections (Comelec), asking the agency to stop Pulse Asia and SWS from publishing pre-election survey results which he claimed were “bogus” and part of a “mind-conditioning scheme.”

As media have included these polls as part of the election campaign coverage, journalists and editors should make sure the reports include more information that will help voters make their decision. Media should mitigate the impact of so-called “mental conditioning” and help voters think more clearly about the process by which they decide to cast their votes. Election coverage should not be limited to the horse race and media should not allow themselves to be used by campaign managers as vehicles for their campaign material.

BusinessMirror noted similar concerns when it reported a roundtable discussion with reporters on January 16. Casiple pointed out that politicians benefit from commissioned surveys, not the voters “who are still deciding and are not yet serious” — referring to whether they had already made up their minds. He also called out the use of commissioned surveys by politicians to create a bandwagon effect, arguing that surveys are “a policy tool (to be used in) making policies” and “should not be used for propaganda.”

Describing it as “snapshots” that change over time, Casiple said election surveys can only surface “top of mind” information, which simply draws out the voter’s awareness of a certain candidate. This accounts for a certain candidate’s high or low placement in survey results, but does not necessarily mean it will be the same come election time, the report explained.

Helping inform voters

The impact of candidate’s rankings in the surveys will gain wider public interest as May approaches. If the media want to help voters make educated decisions, it must produce more meaningful reports and make sense of what the surveys indicate: more of the same names in Congress, more of the same kind of laws, the same kind of politics.

Coverage should also broaden the selection process by providing more information for every candidate; and to equalize the media’s publicity impact, reports should favor the balance toward lesser known candidates with more accounts that recall track records that deserve public attention.

Otherwise, survey reports will serve little more purpose than the benefit of publicity that confirms the hold on voters of already popular candidates.