TWO Manila mayoralty candidates issued the results of their separate election surveys last Monday, and both claimed their surveys showed them ahead in the campaign. We will know after the election on Monday which survey was right. In the meantime, both candidates are entitled to make their claims, by virtue of a Supreme Court decision, no less, that such pre-election surveys are protected by the constitutional guarantee of freedom of expression.
Pre-election surveys have become regular releases of candidates, especially those running for senator. Five to seven names have regularly appeared at the top of the various lists published in recent months, but the next five to seven names keep changing places.
We can understand the difficulties faced by pollsters who have to draw up a sample of 1,800 respondents they will interview, hoping that these 1,800 reflect the views of the 60 million or so voters who are accredited to cast their votes on election day. Many times in the past, winners have emerged when they were supposed to lose.
Aside from the difficulties arising from problems inherent in opinion polling, there are factors that could change election results – poll violence, vote-buying, some sudden news event, good or bad. These could play havoc with the most scientific predictions made by experienced pollsters.
It is, thus, best for voters to make their own decisions, based on their assessments of the abilities and character of the candidates, their track record of accomplishments, their suitability for the position they seek, the endorsements of trusted organizations, and a principle the voter might want to assert, such as the need for an independent Senate.
Survey results should be merely additional information to help the voter make the final decision. Where survey results contradict each other, as in the claims made by two contending mayoralty candidates, it may be best to set them aside.
