by:  Atty. Gregorio B. Austral, CPA

Jumping on the bandwagon

When Vice President Leni Robredo emerged last May, 2021 as the top contender among potential presidential candidates in the 2022 national elections, Malacañang dismissed the results of the survey as “wishful thinking.” However, it cannot be denied that pre-election survey results may sometimes make a voter reconsider his choice and compare notes with other voters.  Every now and then, a voter may be tempted to follow the preference of the majority. This is the bandwagon effect of election surveys.

In Social Weather Stations, Inc. and Pulse Asia, Inc. vs. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 208062, April 07, 2015, Resolution No. 9674 of the COMELEC directed survey firms to submit to COMELEC the names of all commissioners and payors of all surveys published from February 12, 2013 to April 23, 2013, including those of their “subscribers.” The resolution was triggered by the letter of Toby Tiangco, UNA’s Secretary General, to SWS requesting, among others, that he “be furnished the identity of persons who paid for the pre-election survey conducted from February 15 to February 17, 2013 as well as those who subscribed to it.” 

In the letter dated April 30, 2013, SWS and Pulse Asia informed COMELEC Chairman Brillantes that they had not received a copy of Resolution No. 9674. They also articulated their view that Resolution No. 9674 was tainted with irregularities, having been issued ultra vires (i.e., in excess of what the Fair Election Act allows) and in violation of the non-impairment of contracts clause of the Constitution. They also expressed their intention to bring the matter before the Supreme Court on account of these supposed irregularities. Thus, they requested that COMELEC defer or hold in abeyance Resolution No. 9674’s enforcement.  Despite the request from the survey firms, COMELEC issued notices and subpoena directing the firms to appear and submit counter-affidavits and other supporting documents for violation of Section 264[,] par. 1 and 2 of the Omnibus Election Code30 in relation to R.A. 9006.  This compelled SWS and Pulse Asia to file a petition before the Supreme Court questioning the actions of the COMELEC.

In resolving the case, the Supreme Court elaborated on the effects of pre-election surveys on voter preferences.  The Court noted that election surveys have been critiqued for amplifying the notion of an election as a “horse race” and for reducing elections to the lowest common denominator of percentage points or a candidate’s erstwhile share in the vote market rather than focusing on issues, principles, programs, and platforms.  The possible effects of surveys on voter behavior are summarized by the Court in this wise:

First, there is the bandwagon effect where “electors rally to support the candidate leading in the polls.” This assumes that knowledge of a popular ‘tide’ will likely change voting intentions in favor of the frontrunner, that many electors feel more comfortable supporting a popular choice or that people accept the perceived collective wisdom of others as being enough reason for supporting a candidate.”

Second, there is the underdog effect where “electors rally to support the candidate trailing in the polls.” This shift can be motivated by sympathy for the perceived underdog.

Third, there is the motivating effect where “individuals who had not intended to vote are persuaded to do so,” having been alerted to the fact of an election’s imminence.

Fourth, there is also the demotivating effect where “voters abstain from voting out of certainty that their candidate or party will win.”

Fifth, there are reports of a behavior known as strategic voting where “voting is influenced by the chances of winning.”

Lastly, there is also the theory of a free-will effect where “voters cast their ballots to prove the polls wrong.”

The Court observed that of the six effects, the bandwagon effect has a particular resonance and has been of concern. Surveys, or opinion polls, “by directly influencing individual-level support . . . , can be self-fulfilling prophecies and produce opinion cascades. Poll’s prediction may come to pass not only because it measures public opinion but also because it may influence public opinion.”  There is that observed human tendency to conform.  Three (3) mechanisms through which survey results may induce conformity have been posited: (1) normative social influence, or people’s desire to adopt the majority position in order to feel liked and accepted or believe they are on the winning team;
(2) informational social influence, or people learning from the ‘wisdom of crowds’ via social proof because they ‘believe that others’ interpretation of an ambiguous situation is more accurate . . . and will help [them] choose an appropriate course of action’; and
(3) people resolving cognitive dissonance by switching to the side they infer is going to win based on the poll.  

Another legitimate concern observed by the Supreme Court based on studies is that the bandwagon effect, as a form of conformity, is the mirror image of the false consensus effect, where people misperceive that their own behaviors and attitudes are more popular than they actually are. In the political domain, one mechanism underlying the false consensus effect is wishful thinking – people gaining utility from thinking their candidate is ahead or their opinions are popular. The bandwagon effect induced by election surveys assumes even greater significance in considering the health of a democracy. Integral to our appreciation of democracy is the recognition that democracy is fundamentally deliberative. It is rooted in the exchange and dialogue of ideas. Accordingly, free expression, not least of all from the minority and from those who do not conform, i.e., those who dissent and criticize, is indispensable.  

In deciding the case, the Supreme Court ruled that Resolution No. 9674 addresses the reality that an election survey is formative as it is descriptive. It can be a means to shape the preference of voters and, thus, the outcome of elections. In the hands of those whose end is to get a candidate elected, it is a means for such end and partakes of the nature of election propaganda. Accordingly, the imperative of “fair” elections impels their regulation.