THE way the spate of public opinion polls on the forthcoming elections have been tarred and feathered in mainstream and social media should alarm the research companies that have been conducting them with greater frequency as May 9 approaches. The question now being frequently asked by opinion makers is, “Does anybody still believe in the surveys?”
But the unflattering commentaries have, themselves, been dismissed by the polling specialists as sour graping by parties who have been unhappy with the results. That may be true to a large extent. But there are enough verified instances of biased surveys – or those employing questionable methodologies – to damage the credibility of the principal survey companies, specifically SWS and Pulse Asia.
Worse yet, the Duterte camp recently released the “results” of a survey that showed him in the lead – a claim promptly denied as fake by Pulse Asia, to which the research had been attributed. Too bad for the Duterte group, because – like the proverbial boy who cried wolf – even possibly genuine survey findings are now being met with raised eyebrows.
One series of public opinion readings currently being roundly criticized is the Bilang Pilipino Mobile Survey being conducted by SWS with the technical and logistical support of TV5 and the PLDT-Smart Communications group.
SWS is the same research firm that conducted the much-maligned survey in late November 2015 which showed Davao Mayor Rodrigo Duterte leading the field at 38 percent, ahead of Vice-President Jejomar Binay (21 percent), Sen. Grace Poe (21 percent), Sec. Mar Roxas (15 percent) and Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago (4 percent).
The survey, which SWS admitted was commissioned by a Duterte supporter, asked a leading question, as follows:
“Ibang listahan naman po ang gamitin natin. Kasama dito si RODRIGO DUTERTE bilang isang substitute candidate sa Presidente. Sa mga sumusunod na mga pangalan sa listahang ito, sino po ang malamang ninyong iboto bilang PRESIDENTE NG PILIPINAS, kung ang eleksyon ay gaganapin ngayon (SHOW LIST 2)” (Let us use another list. This one includes Rodrigo Duterte as a substitute candidate for president. From the list of names here, who do you think will be your choice for president of the Philippines if elections were held today?)
Any research practitioner worth his coconuts will tell you that the framing of the question created an obvious bias in favor of Duterte that resulted in his high rating.
That was not the first time that SWS had used a questionable methodology in its surveys. In recent presidential preference polls, SWS has used varying lists of purported candidates, including those who had not indicated any interest in running for president. The results have, therefore, not been comparable and have been lacking in reliability and credibility (Pulse Asia has also applied the same methodology).
Unfortunately, these “public opinion polls” have been widely publicized in media and have been used by interested parties to influence public attitudes and stir a bandwagon effect among prospective voters.
The current Bilang Pilipino Mobile Survey, which SWS characterizes as a “pioneering project to rapidly track the opinions of a statistically representative national panel of voters,” has been subjected to much criticism. According to SWS, a panel of randomly selected respondents, ostensibly representing the Philippine voting population, was constituted and given mobile phones. Starting with the 2nd presidential debate held in Cebu, the panelists have been asked to respond to questions transmitted to them by SWS about current election issues, with a focus on candidate preferences.
The Bilang Pilipino Mobile Survey has, in effect, constituted a consumer panel on ongoing election issues. The effective usage of consumer panels is in deriving short and quick insights on the subject of a market test (such as a product test) from respondents with specialist knowledge, but they are not intended as a representative sample for the general population.
In this regard, the Bilang Pilipino Mobile Survey is severely flawed in two aspects. Firstly, the average response rate has been poor, rendering the findings with a high margin of error – up to plus/minus 7 percent in Metro Manila and the Visayas and as high as plus/minus 8 percent in balance Luzon and Mindanao.
And, worse yet, the panelists are, in effect, being used as “specialists” on election issues. Anyone who has used research for marketing purposes (as I have for over half a century) will tell you that it is not advisable to derive “expert opinions” from respondents unless they are specialists on the subject being tested.
You never ask ordinary consumers whether an ad layout is good or bad – in effect, asking them to render the opinion of graphic experts or ad specialists. You will end up with responses ranging from the sublime to the ridiculous.
Spontaneity is key in research and leading questions are an abomination. The Bilang Pilipino Mobile Survey is peppered with holes in this respect. Spontaneity is lost because the mobile phone panelists, knowing that they will be periodically asked to respond to questions, are most likely anticipating and discussing them with others. If they were members of a jury in the US, they would be dismissed for exposing themselves to extraneous influences.
The mobile survey also falls into the category of a “push poll,” an unflattering term in the scientific research community and defined by Wikipedia as follows:
“A push poll is an interactive marketing technique, most commonly employed during political campaigning, in which an individual or organization attempts to influence or alter the view of voters under the guise of conducting a poll.
“In a push poll, large numbers of voters are contacted briefly (often less than 60 seconds), and little or no effort is made to collect and analyze response data. Instead, the push poll is a form of telemarketing-based propaganda and rumor mongering, masquerading as a poll. Push polls may rely on innuendo or knowledge gleaned from opposition research on an opponent.
“Push polls are generally viewed as a form of negative campaigning. Indeed, the term is commonly (and confusingly) used in a broader sense to refer to legitimate polls that aim to test negative political messages. Future usage of the term will determine whether the strict or broad definition becomes the most favored definition. However, in all such polls, the pollster asks leading questions or suggestive questions that ‘push’ the interviewee towards adopting an unfavorable response towards the political candidate.
“Push polling has been condemned by the American Association of Political Consultants and the American Association of Public Opinion Research.”
In the first Bilang Pilipino Mobile Survey, which ostensibly tracked public opinion on the results of the 2ndpresidential debate in Cebu, SWS asked a leading negative question:
“Whom among the candidates for PRESIDENT of the PHILIPPINES you DO NOT LIKE TO WIN the most? (CHOOSE ONE) [Sino sa mga kandidato sa PRESIDENTE ng PILIPINAS ang PINAKA-AYAW MONG MANALO? (PUMILI NG ISA)].”
The way the question was framed falls into the exact pattern defined by Wikipedia as an attempt “to influence or alter the view of voters under the guise of conducting a poll.” Nonetheless, SWS has been unapologetic in using this highly irregular and questionable methodology for whatever reason it may have. And whatever reason that might be, it certainly does not define SWS as a credible and reliable research organization but rather as a political propaganda tool.
In sum, if your life depended on the reliability of the Bilang Pilipino SWS Mobile Survey, you really wouldn’t be sure if you will live or die. But at least, you will have an indication of odds. As in gambling, that’s the best use of this push poll masquerading as a scientific research study. ([email protected])