Dedicated to the millennials (Altho there is no millennial vote, no women’s vote, no men’s vote, etc. in the Philippines)

Dedicated to the millennials (unfairly being blamed or praised for the ratings of certain candidates, but here are the stats, see numbers and discussion below):

Based on Comelec data as of January 2016: Almost half of the 54.36 million registered voters in the country are below 35 years old, or the so-called millennials.

       That is, 24.73 million voters of the 54.36 million registered voters are aged 17 to 34 years old.

      Here is the breakdown:
3,043,411 voters are 17 to 19 years old
7,983,167 voters are 20-24 years old
7,370,037 voters are 25 to 29 years old
6,333,398 voters are 30 to 34 years old

    There is no study that indicates that there is a millennial vote or millennial block vote. Nada.

     There is no study that indicates that there is a women’s vote or women voting as a block. Wala. Wala po. It’s fragmented into the four leading candidates with (according to Pulse Asia in March, 2016): Grace Poe getting a small edge of about 2%-4% over the second-placer for women’s votes with the rest evenly divided. That means there is no women’s vote – they do not cluster dramatically around one candidate, but yes, she enjoys a slight edge, but that is still not a block vote.
      There is no study that indicates that there is a men’s vote or men voting as a block. It’s fragmented into the four leading candidates with (according to Pulse Asia in March 2016) Duterte getting a small edge of 2% to 4% over the second placer for men’s votes with the rest evenly divided, so that means they are not dramatically clustered, not a block vote.

     If you look at urban versus rural, one candidate tops the urban vote with a mere 2% over the second placer for urban voters while another candidate tops the rural vote with a mere 2% to 4 % over the second placer for the rural voters.

     The only block vote is the Iglesia ni Cristo and that was where the President was yesterday, but there is no study to indicate that they have made or unmade a presidential elections or determined its outcome.

    Perish the thought that between now and May 9 or a mere six days, there will be a millennial vote, or a women’s vote, or a men’s vote, or an urban vote, or a rural vote. There’s not enough time.

    Are there territorial votes such as a Visayan vote, a solid North, a Mindanao vote, or a Metro Manila vote? Traditionally, the territorial votes were categorized as “opposition country” and “administration votes”; but since after Garci (who delivered landslides 0-versus-100% “victory” and leads from big islands) and during the era of automated elections, apparently no single region or island has delivered landslides to one candidate.

      What to do now with six days remaining – since there is no millennial vote, no women’s vote, etc. ?

    Between now and May 9, a party has to exert all its efforts to sweeping strokes of propaganda that capture the imagination of the entire nation.

      That is: In the next remaining crucial six days, while it is true that you should consolidate your so-called voting blocks, the decisive swing in voters’ preferences will not be determined by the blocks — it will be determined by…. (drum roll please): The level of political consciousness of the electorate. (big words).  Eh ganuon talaga, iyun nga yung obvious na hindi nakikita ng mga so-called political analysts.

      Here’s one more: Based on the numbers, based on who were leading in the presidential surveys in the last one-and-a-half years, three-fourths of those were not choosing the administration daang matuwid candidate (sorry po, malapit na po ang eleksyon, ito po yung data.)

     Here’s one more. Ito ang pag-isipan nyo nang mabuti

     In the next six days, would you be able to change that? i.e., in a mere six days, would you be able to change one-and-a-half years’ trend or data? Pag-isipan mo nang mabuti, hwag ka masyadong matagal mag-isip.

    That (whether they would swing in favor of the admin candidate or not) would  also be determined by the level of political consciousness  and in the next six days, the swing, if any,  with less than one week, will adjust only within its level of political consciousness. (barring massive cheating).              

Next-day post-debate “polls” on who “won” the debate: not scientific #PiliPinasDebates2016 #juanvote

     As expected, PR agencies of the candidates flood the news pages a day or two after the debate with press releases on who “won” the debate.
More insidious however are “polls” hosted by news organizations that purport to measure who “won” the debate by soliciting votes from their viewers or readers. This is called an open-access poll or a crowd-sourced poll. It is not scientific, and everybody knows that.
Well, maybe not everybody.
Many people still believe what they see or read in the news. And many more do not know that for the right price, a candidate can contract a PR agency to activate 10,000 unique isp numbers in his/her favor to vote in a non-scientific poll, and get away with it. He/she “won the debate”!
Would it be too much to ask the editors to at least put a small, teeny box beside their sidebar “poll” that states: “non-scientific poll”. Two words, one line. Or: “Not a scientific poll.” Four words (three words and an article). Or: “This is not a scientific poll.” Or: “not scientific”. Or: “non-scientific”. One word.  Would that be too much to ask?
Otherwise, post-debate “polls”, like the opinions of “political analysts” on who “won” the debate” are just pieces of propaganda materials to repair the shattered performances of their clients. 

⇒ ⇒⇒
From Sheldon R. Gawiser, Ph.D. and G. Evans Witt of the National Council on Public Polls (U.S.):“The only polls that should be reported are “scientific” polls.xxx Unscientific pseudo-polls are widespread and sometimes entertaining, but they never provide the kind of information that belongs in a serious report. Examples include xxx call-in polls, man-on-the-street surveys, many Internet polls, shopping mall polls xxx
         “One major distinguishing difference between scientific and unscientific polls is who picks the respondents for the survey. In a scientific poll, the pollster identifies and seeks out the people to be interviewed. In an unscientific poll, the respondents usually “volunteer” their opinions, selecting themselves for the poll.
         “In scientific polls, the pollster uses a specific statistical method for picking respondents. In unscientific polls, the person picks himself to participate” (open access: open to everyone interested) xxx The method pollsters use to pick interviewees relies on the bedrock of mathematical reality: when the chance of selecting each person in the target population is known, then and only then do the results of the sample survey reflect the entire population. This is called a random sample or a probability sample. xxx” (at  http://www.ncpp.org/   )