VOTERS have been deluged with lessons on voting since the start of the campaign. They include:
* Probing the candidate's character and capability;
* Not voting for members of a political dynasty or those who rely on their father, or his memory, to get elected;
* Shunning those who are not pro-life;
* Discarding the corrupt;
* Rejecting a bribe or accepting it but not voting for the vote-buyer.
As to which values will work, there may be little way of knowing.
Some imponderables, including issues over voting values, are often beyond post-election analysis. They can't be set apart and scrutinized. Elements of victory or defeat overlap and often can't be quantified.
On candidate's character: How can its influence be estimated when no campaign, focused on hype and sound, ever adequately disclose a person's integrity or lack of it?
Dynasty: Argument that it's the voters who ultimately decide and absence of a definition of what is dynastic confuse voters.
RH factor: Basing a legislator's love for life and competence on one's vote for the disputed reproductive health law may be arbitrary and unfair.
Corruption, vote-buying: Charges filed but not resolved may be an unreliable test.
Voters tend to distrust word of mouth about a public official's shady deals. And how can vote-buying be isolated from other causes of victory?
Surprises
Advocates have never been louder and more pervasive. Some values may have seeped into voters' consciousness and may produce surprises in Monday's election.
Or they may not.
(paseares@sunstar.com.ph)