Does a scorecard stand a chance?

Iam doing my best to understand what is in the psyche of netizens who participated in the Rappler polls. Mayor Duterte was their overwhelming choice in the first Presidential debate. He was quick on words and short on specifics. He promised to eliminate the rice cartel in 3 days and stamp out corruption in 6 months.

To him, the difficult process is only a matter of him telling them to “Stop it.” With this tagline, netizens were drawn to him and chose him as the next best President for our country. He admitted all his misgivings such as unfaithfulness to his wife, and people found him truthful.

He implied that it is only him and Senator Santiago who are qualified for the Presidency and people clapped. In contrast, people found Senator Roxas critical and offensive when he indirectly described the other candidates as rude, corrupt and inexperienced. What goes on in the minds of voters? How do they process decisionmaking? Is there room for reality and analyzing facts?

This is the philosophy behind the use of scorecard. The Movement for Good Governance ( MGG) has been helping people to choose their candidates based on facts and records of their performance, their ethical character and empowering characteristics.

MGG believes that people are rational decision makers and set criteria in making personal, professional, and business decisions. Senator Roxas said it succinctly, in choosing a driver or a housekeeper, we look at his/her records and characteristics. Synergeia, and other firms I suppose, ask potential employees to go through a battery of intelligence, aptitude and psychological tests. And so we ask, why are people not as discriminate in choosing the leaders who will lead this country in the next six years? What influences their voting behavior?

There are considerable studies that show that voting behavior is governed more by emotions and less by rationality (Winter, 2015). People tend to be more attracted to candidates who are able to condense complicated issues into “brief but inaccurate snippets”.

This is what Parkinson’s law of triviality says (Burnett). Voters are turned off by discussions of difficult issues because they find these threatening and requiring so much of their time and efforts. Studies also show that voters choose people who are convincing.

Surprisingly, the Krueger effect demonstrates that “less intelligent people appear to be more incredibly confident.” They are able to translate issues into simple terms that voters understand. They epitomize bravado, action and brazenness.

So are we to lose hope? Not quite. Findings of the Philippine Institute for Philippine Culture concluded that the poor vote is a thinking vote.

Sixteen focus group discussions with the poor found that the poor consider education, experience, platform and track record in choosing their candidates.

The recent MGG experience with the alumni of “Bahay ng Mabuting Pastol” in Tagaytay proved that voters can be discerning.

They just need opportunities to be fully informed of who the candidates are and they themselves participate in the debates through a townhall meeting. Compare the results of their voting behavior prior to and after the townhall meeting:

Candidates Pre-townhall (No. of votes)

7 14

6 22

6

After townhall 2 2 2 43

1

Preferences change when voters are more informed, share insights, raise questions, and confront actual facts.

Yesterday as I listened to Dr. R. Clarete describe the recent performance of the Philippine economy as unprecedented, I am truly convinced that each of us cannot afford to be bystanders.

We are at the cutting edge and one wrong move will put all the efforts of the past into naught. We all have to take an active part in empowering citizens to elect candidates that our country truly deserves.

mguevara@synergeia.org.ph