Nobody looked carefully at the SWS press releases published by Businessworld and mindlessly used by leading broadsheet editors, and nobody asked the following question:
The SWS press release on the survey on the next President used the survey result which asked respondents to GIVE THREE NAMES on who could be the next President; BUTfor the vice president survey, it used and released the survey result which asked the respondents for only ONE NAME, or: “Whom would you vote for Vice President should elections be held today?” (asked for only ONE NAME, name of the candidate they would vote for vice president ). Here are the links to the SWS media releases of their “Third Quearter 2015 Social Weather Survey” so you can see for yourself instead of relying on the mindless reporting of the broadsheets:
WHY? WHY? BAKIT? ANO ANG DAHILAN? WHAT IS THE EXPLANATION? BAKIT GANUN? WHY IS THE SWS SELECTIVE IN ITS RELEASE OF INFO ON SURVEY RESULTS?
The “explanation” of an SWS representative that the question they asked for the next President (three names) was the usual question they have been using since 2007, and which they have been using since the filing of candidacy has not started — is NOT availing because: for Vice President, they have a survey result based on a question which asked respondents for only one name for Vice President. The SWS explanation cannot be relied upon —
And no one is asking the SWS: Why is there a disparity in the kind of survey result info being released for the next President and for the next VP.
WHY? WHY? BAKIT? ANO ANG DAHILAN? WHAT IS THE EXPLANATION? BAKIT GANUN? WHY IS THE SWS SELECTIVE IN ITS RELEASE OF INFO ON SURVEY RESULTS?
Those candidates who are “elated” (see inquirer.net) over the released info of SWS should be careful what they are “elated” about.
Nobody asked SWS:
Since you conducted a 3rd quarter survey that asked for only one name for Vice President: IS THERE A 3rd QUARTER SURVEY THAT ASKED 1,200 RESPONDENTS NATIONWIDE FOR ONLY ONE NAME FOR PRESIDENT? (or if none, what is the explanation for the disparity, the inconsistency, lack of sense and logic in difference of questions used for Pres and Vice Pres) Whyyy whyyy whyyyy?
The SWS survey reported out today by the news media, and supported by a press release from Malacañang spokesperson Sonny Coloma, is NOT a survey to measure the most possible voter preference for President in the next elections. (such a survey would ask respondents: “If elections were held today, whom would you vote for President?”). Rather, it is a survey that measures the top three most familiar names. Supposedly, it asked 1,200 respondents whom they think are the top three leaders of the country. That’s nota “presidential survey”, and its reporting, unilaterally, uncritically, without clarification, is meant to deceive.
And who hailed the SWS survey again? See first paragraph. Malacañang spokesperson.
The SWS survey report is generic, misleading, and meant to deceive the public. The survey is akin to asking respondents to enumerate three known names as government officials.
At best, it is like asking respondents:
“If there were three Presidents that could be elected, what names come to mind?…”
“If there were a country that has three heads of State to rule that one country at the same time, who are these possible three heads of State that would preside over one small country all at the same time?…”
“If there were an archipelago composed of three groups of islands, who are the three Presidents that would rule these three groups of islands at a division of one group of islands per head?…”
“If one small island-nation would have three heads of State that would divide up that one small island-nation into three fiefdoms, who are these three heads of the Hydra, este, er, heads of State?…”
and so on.
The fact that the Malacañang spokesperson hailed the most recent SWS survey (on the possible three heads of the Hydra, este, er, three heads of State to rule all at the same time) tells you where the report is coming from.
