Elections in the Philippines... Some things never change...

Binay said he’ll win by 15 million votes tomorrow… At first I laughed at it, considering the turn-out of people yesterday at the last rally of the presidentiables. But the owl in me (those from AT&T would know) keeps bothering me, nudging me to take a closer look.

According to the final report of the Commission on Elections (Comelec), there are 54, 363,844 registered voters nationwide for the 2016 polls (Registered Voters) plus the 1,376,067 registered overseas voters.

Voter turn-out during elections is around 75% (73.1% on 2004, 74.99% in 2010, 75.72% in 2013) with the exception of 86% recorded in 2001. So assuming 75% voter turn-out this polls, that would be round 40, 772, 883 flocking the precincts tomorrow.

The Latest Survey results show Duterte in a commanding lead over his opponents, I Told myself...

And Binay is nowhere near the top. Will he pull off another upset like on the 2010 elections?

So I backtracked a bit and wondered if the Surveys reflect an accurate or at least similar results during the polls... which lead me to image...

Seems legit. But then we can never really tell. So to assure myself, I tried to get as much data as possible. 

But what could be the possible basis of Binay's prediction?

Well for one, majority of the Filipinos have low income. The only palpable dimension of "government" they have ever known is the periodic dispensing of favors by local bosses and politicians. (See it here) It makes sense to vote for political families and clans who represent personal connection in a system run on nepotism, irrelevant whether they are crooks or related to deposed despots.

Another source would be the indigenous peoples (IP), which is estimated to be 14-17 million and accounts for the 12% of the country's population. They are spread over Northern Luzon (CAR: 33%) and Mindanao (61%), with some groups in the Visayas area.

  

In the past elections, most IPs were kept and fed in holding places before the election. They were given “literacy classes” only to teach them how to fill up the ballot and to shade the name of the politician who seized them. On election day, they were brought to their precincts to vote for that candidate. This was called a case of “hamletting” where the IPs were coerced to vote for certain candidates.

Political candidates take advantage of the IPs knowing that the majority are illiterate and will just follow the suit. 

And there's vote buying. 

There's the traditional one such as this

But unlike before, some politicians are promising a monthly allowance of up to 6,000.00 pesos should they win... Which makes me wonder, where will they get that money or is it just another empty promise? 

The poor as a category is variously defined, According to official statistics, 39.5% of Filipinos or more than five million families, lived below poverty threshold.

Survey organizations, however, refer to lower-income groups as belonging to "D" and "E" classes that are estimated to make up as much as 93 percent of some 43 million Filipino voters. According to the Social Weather Stations (SWS), the D class, which makes up 60 percent of all voters, comprises lower-middle class households "who have some comfort and means but basically thrive on a hand-to-mouth existence." The E class, comprising 33 percent of households, is the extremely lower class "who evidently face great difficulties in meeting their basic survival needs."

The monthly income of a Class D household is P8,000 to P14,999 if living in Metro Manila and P4,000 to P9,999 elsewhere. That of a Class E household is below P8,000 if living in Metro Manila and below P4,000 outside the capital

Indeed, the report shows that overall, the most import sources of influence in the choice of candidates among the poor are, in declining order: the media, the family, the church, political parties. Surveys come in last on the list. The much-vaunted influence of the established churches may therefore be overstated, even though poor voters value piety (makadiyos) among their leaders. 

Urban voters rated the media as the most crucial in influencing their vote while rural voters tended to give slightly more importance to family and church. The media were seen as crucial in providing information about candidates even before the campaign period, such as what incumbent officials have accomplished.

"The poor analyze the images projected by candidates, whether they are heard on the radio or seen on TV to gauge the character of a person. For instance, rural women try to observe how a candidate speaks, especially if the person 'speaks with respect,'" says the IPC report. "Rural males also assess a candidate's manner of speaking; they gaze at the face of the candidate; and observe how the candidate stands up or walks, and how the person deals with people. Urban participants similarly obtain cues about character by observing the manner of speaking and the person's physical appearance." 

Some young voters, meanwhile, say they can glean character from the way the candidate looks at the camera and their manner of speaking or responding to questions during a debate. One youth apparently tries to observe if the candidate "can look you straight in the eye. They say liars have unstable eye movements."

But the poor think they do not get enough information from the media, especially on candidates running for national positions. As one woman resident of an urban poor community said, "News reveals only what candidates did the particular day of the campaign and not what they want to do, what they have already done, what they have accomplished or want to accomplish." 

There was a gender gap when it came to how much family influenced voting. Women deemed discussions among family members as very influential in determining the vote. Urban women, in particular, were adamant that the family should not be divided on its choice of candidates. But urban men did not have a consensus on whether the family should have a unified vote. Observes the IPC: "The gender differential appears to enter the picture, with women acceding to the men in order to avert conflict. Men, on the other hand, tend to take pride in their seeming autonomy at making electoral choices." 

The youth, meanwhile, asserted their right to choose their own candidates even as they identified the family as an important factor influencing their votes. Some rural youths said they would choose their parents' candidates to preserve family. This indicates that there may be no such a thing as a homogeneous youth vote, leading the IPC report to conclude that, "assertions concerning a 'youth vote' ought to be subjected to further examination.

And lastly, the influence of social media. Out of the 40, 772, 883 predicted to flock the polls tomorrow, only a handful has access to smartphones, facebook, twitter, instagram, pinterest, snapchat and other social media sites. A rough estimate would be least 20 Million of those, but what about the rest? 

Oh well, no matter what the results of the elections tomorrow, I do hope it wont be Binay emerging as the winner...