VOTER
BEHAVIOR AND
ELECTIONS
A 2003 IPER update study on voter behavior suggest the top four factors determining the vote of Filipino electorate:
1. candidate’s public servant image;
2. political machinery;
3. candidate’s popularity; and
4. endorsement of a traditional network and organizations which include the family, the church, the ward leaders, and formal groups
and associations.
According to the March 2004 Pulse Asia Survey, the youth do not differ from other age groups in their desired traits for a national
leader (top traits were: pro-poor, is knowledgeable and has experience in management of government, trustworthy, can enforce the law
equally for influential and ordinary people, prays often to God, godly, sincere, and fights anomalies in government).
In March 2007, Pulse Asia conducted the same survey, with the following results as the most important characteristics that a national
leader should posses: hard working, relates well to others, can give hope to most Filipinos, has integrity and a good reputation,
produces good results, announces his/her stand on important issues and his/her proposed programs.
Furthermore, it has been reported that about 79% to 90% of registered voters below 55 years old were aware of political ads in 2004
and with a slight increase to 88% to 94% in 2007.
The conduct of elections is made complex by the practices and values, which in turn are reflective of the behavior and attitudes of the
electorate and the politicians and of the actual practices before, during and after elections. Further, voter behavior reflects the
personalistic and patronage orientation of traditional Filipino politics or “trapo”.
Patronage politics thrive in a culture where the government leader becomes a politician who serves as a patron accommodating special
favors to dole out money or provide jobs, recommendations and contracts to only a few in exchange for votes in the succeeding
elections or support for a political agenda.
A common element of patronage culture is utang na loob. The powers-that-be use this to ensure that their political and economic
interests will be served. For instance, a “powerful” politician may invite a candidate to run under his political party and in return, the
candidate will feel indebted and eventually feel pressured to support the political agenda of his benefactor (even if he is opposed to said
agenda).
For the poor, giving their support to a candidate is seen as an investment so that they can depend on the politician for help, e.g.
donations, medicine, school fees. Campaign supporters view their help as a personal favor that the elected official should perceive as
utang na loob. In return, they expect the official to accept personal invitations from their organizations, to comply with personal
requests for donations, to award them perhaps with a government position upon electoral victory.t
In preparation for a coming election, people with plans of running for public office would be seen attending public functions from the
barangay (community) to the provincial level. For constituents at the national level, candidates engage themselves in media exposure.
Conversely, voting has always been determined by popularity of the candidate and financial and party machinery, which enhances the
popularity of a candidate. Elections now become a high-spending process to the detriment of the candidates who have neither the
financial resources nor the machinery, which can provide for posters and airtime in mass media.
Consequently, the electoral system becomes bereft of the real issues affecting the electorate. Venues to seriously discuss programs of
action and performances of candidates become less relevant in determining who gets elected to office.
The traditional guns, goons, and gold element of Filipino politics continue to be a real phenomenon in certain districts, provinces, and
regions particularly at the local level.
Massive election fraud and violence are employed in order to win elections. Instances of heating range from use of flying voters,
registration of disqualified voters, vote-buying, ballot and ballot box switching, padding of votes through dagdag bawas and other
forms, tampering the canvass of votes, etc. Again, these practices become more detrimental to candidates who have neither the
financial nor political machinery to guard the integrity of the votes and election results. However, the most powerful safeguard against
election fraud is the awareness and vigilance of every voter.
Voters tend to be responsive to audio-visual tools and experiential discussions in voters’ education forums. Recipients of voter
education programs become more socially aware and are able to realize their stake in the electoral process.
There is a general observation by voters’ education trainors/educators that voters are seemingly more intelligent and critical now, but
their motivations remain highly incentive- driven (What will be their personal gain in voting for this person? It may not exactly be a
monetary value, but as earlier stated, voters tend to go for someone who has the economic power to aid them in whatever means
possible).xt
THANK YOU