The need for big mirrors
If all of us were the same, there would be no need for polls to ascertain the people’s attitudes and opinions. From sheer introspection, each of us could see, as in a personal mirror, the universal feelings of Filipinos on any issue.
We would always be united, and thus act, voluntarily, for the general good. No need for government. No need for a system, like democracy, on how to make collective decisions when opinions differ.
There are well-educated people so opinionated that they cannot fathom why others do not see the logic of their views. They are dissatisfied if a scientific poll finds that only 60 percent agree with them.
There is need for big mirrors that reflect not just oneself and one’s immediate neighbors, but entire communities, and even the entire nation. Scientific opinion polling is the mechanism for providing such big mirrors to modern societies.
Polls show that opinions are dynamic. On June 5-8, the gross national satisfaction with President Aquino’s performance was 57 percent, a
10-point rise from the 47 percent of March 20-23. Ten points is quite significant, given the national error margin of three points (which applies to gross, not net, satisfaction). This change was revealed by opinion polling.
I heard a TV commentator wonder how P-Noy’s satisfaction rate could have risen, since “nothing happened” between March and June, according to him. What he could understand was the fall in the rating between December 2014 and March 2015, on account of the Mamasapano incident in January. He apparently expected the March rating to be static until June, since “nothing happened.”
Social Weather Stations does not make projections of how satisfaction with any official will probably change, or not change, over points in time. It is open to whatever each new survey round finds.
The SWS interviewers are only charged with obtaining the truth. Responses will differ, but no response is “wrong” as long as respondents tell the truth. The SWS data-processors are charged with encoding the responses accurately, and then computing the summary tables correctly. The technical staff is charged with writing reports fairly, with prejudice to none.
To me, the fact that P-Noy’s rating rose from March to June is evidence that “something happened,” whether or not I can identify the “something.” Perhaps the decline in conflict in Mindanao and the absence of another Mamasapano-like incident anywhere in the country was already “something.”
Polls show how opinions differ across groups. An SWS national survey is made up of separate surveys in the National Capital Region (NCR), the Balance of Luzon (BoL), the Visayas, and Mindanao. These mini-surveys have equal sample sizes, to ensure equal accuracy at the area level. Then Census weights are applied to get the national picture properly.
The 10-point national recovery of P-Noy’s gross satisfaction rating from March to June was due to recoveries by 16 points in BoL, eight points in Mindanao, five points in the Visayas, and a trifling one point in NCR. The changes in BoL and Mindanao are larger than the area-error-margin of six points; so I suppose “something happened” there. The stability in NCR is probably acceptable to the analyst who said “nothing happened” to affect satisfaction with P-Noy. He needs the big mirror to appreciate how the situation differs throughout the country.
How SWS does nonpartisan polling on an election race. The relative strengths of potential candidates for the 2016 elections are obviously of great public interest. SWS tracks and reports these strengths as a public service, by a system that neither favors nor prejudices any candidate, as befits a nonpartisan research institute.
The key element of the SWS system is that it does not offer survey respondents any candidates to choose from. We ask the respondents, without a list to prompt them, to name up to three leaders who would be the best to succeed the current president. They may cite anyone, including those who have not shown interest in running for the office. The system is unaffected by political announcements about definitely running for president (like that of Vice President Jejomar Binay) or not running for it anymore (like that of Davao Mayor Rodrigo Duterte).
Asking for multiple names gives more chance for potential candidates to be noticed. The average number of names we get is between one and two; only a few give three names. SWS reports the names cited by at least 0.5 percent of the respondents.
Using this system in 2008-09, SWS identified Noynoy Aquino, who never got a single point in the no-list surveys before Cory Aquino died, as a very strong presidential candidate as early as September 2009 (see SWS Nov. 4-8, 2009 Survey: Noynoy Aquino and Manny Villar top the people’s “three best leaders to succeed PGMA in 2010,” 12/15/2009, https://www.sws.org.ph/pr091215.htm).
By not using a list, SWS avoids complaints of unwanted exclusion, since a candidate excluded from a list loses the opportunity for survey-based data. (Being in the list, if there is a list, is a survey “freebie,” with calculable monetary value, for a potential candidate.) SWS also avoids complaints of unwanted inclusion, since an included noncandidate is exposed to possible humiliation if he/she gets miserable numbers.
Since the no-list system is unchanged from round to round, it is a consistent way of tracking the popularity of potential candidates over time. The disadvantage of using a list is that its numbers are affected as the names are revised.
* * *
Contact [email protected]
