Last December, my two closest walking buddies agreed on a friendly bet on whether or not the total votes of all the other presidential candidates would amount to one half of the votes of Bongbong Marcos in May this year.
The one who wagered that they wouldn’t obviously trusted in the results of a supposed survey that was published in a newspaper, a clipping of which he waved before us. They sealed the bet with a handshake which I was tasked to witness.
Last week, I was told that the bet was off; the friend who confidently brandished the survey results was not so sure anymore and backed out. When I met him a couple of days later, I asked him what happened. He said he grossly miscalculated.
I wanted to tease him about his missing “palabra de honor” but desisted when I saw that he was repentant. He still strongly believed that his candidate would win, he told us, but was no longer certain about the huge margin. There is a Cebuano word that best describes his experience: nakuryente. The funny thing is that there are so many like him.
There are surveys that are fraudulent and there are surveys that are conducted honest to goodness. The one that misled my friend obviously belonged in the first, the fraudulent kind. But even the genuine and straightforward ones may not necessarily reflect the real picture. And it could happen even in the most technologically advanced nation.
Take what happened in the USA’s last two elections. In 2016, all the surveys pointed to a Hilary Clinton victory. Donald Trump won. And while Joe Biden won four years later as predicted by the surveys, it was not by the same margin that they said it would be. Even the best methodology cannot guarantee a 100 percent accuracy of any survey result.
But I do not take the same dim view of surveys as a senatorial candidate who is a consistent tailender in the surveys conducted by the country’s only two more or less credible polling companies, and who was seen loudly complaining that all surveys are meant to condition the mind of the public preparatory to cheating. If he loses, which at this point is almost a certainty, it is not because he was cheated. It would be an entirely different story if he wins.
But what do fraudulent surveys serve if they’re not meant to prelude cheating? To boost a sagging campaign, that’s one. A candidate needs to project the image of winnability in order to be taken seriously not only by the voters but also by would-be donors. I once knew someone who was a master at table surveys and made quite a pile from his racket.
His “company” sported fancy names and he would cite intelligence agencies of the US, UK, Russia and France, among others as his sources. That by itself was a dead giveaway on the undertaking’s falsehood but people, including newspapers that published his press releases, fell for it.
Another purpose is to promote the audience or viewership of the surveyor. This kind of survey is what they call clickbait, targeting fanatic supporters of a party or candidate. The more “votes” polled in, the more hits the website gets. Radio stations or programs also do this.
Political surveys are entertaining but only when you don’t take them seriously. Do not be like my friend who was certain to lose a few grand because he trusted in the product of a hole in the wall.