VOTING HABIT: UNDERSTANDING THE FACTORS AFFECTING THE VOTERS IN

VOTE-SELLING
Jennelyn A. Gaoiran

ABSTRACT
Election period in the Philippines is one of the most awaited events by which individual
exercises their right of suffrage, but the occurrence of vote buying and selling are always
associated to this event and became prevalent to any area. This study aimed to understand the
factors affecting the participants (Voters) in vote-selling and to identify the implications of vote-
buying. Phenomenological – Qualitative method is used to describe this phenomenon. This
focuses mainly on 12 registered voters, who experienced vote selling last May 2016 local
elections in one municipalities in the province of Isabela and is attained by purposive sampling.
The results of this research showed factors of vote-selling such as; socio-economic difficulties,
level of election laws awareness of the voters and the influence of electoral violence. There
implications of vote buying were; 1.) Vote-buying became the trend among the community, 2.)
It leads to deprivation of equal access to opportunity because aspirants were not given fair fight
because money machinery became the edge of the candidates; 3.) It is one of the causes of
corruption for the expenditures originated from the shadow of the economy; and 4.) It became a
form of debt of volition in return for particularistic favors.
Keywords: vote-buying, election, election laws, corruption
INTRODUCTION
During elections, political parties dispense particularistic benefits to entities and would be voters.
Political operatives frequently distribute not just cash, but also a wide variety of goods and
services such as bags of rice, clothing, friendship games, flyers with cash on it and medical
missions. This practice is typically called “vote buying,” but it actually comprises numerous
distinct strategies.
According to the Transparency International (2004) vote buying is understood as the exchange of
private goods for votes during election campaigns, is decried as a widespread form of
electioneering that distorts democratic processes in the evolving world. According to this view,
vote-buying machines that monitor vote choice invert the mechanisms of democratic
accountability by making citizen subject to the control of politicians (Stokes 2005) and
negotiation the ability of targeted citizens to freely exercise their political rights (Fox 1994).

Remarkably, vote buying as the exchange of cash or other goods for votes in forthcoming
elections, has in its definition an apparent economic unpredictability. This exchange needs
implementation at the ballot station, lifting of secret voting if taken literally. The Philippines
uses secret electronic balloting, so vote-buyers cannot directly verify an individual’s vote, but
must instead rely on trust and reciprocity
Conferring to Dekel, et.al., (2006) Voters try to sell their votes to those party with the highest
rate offer or bribe and not thinking that there is an assumptions of the voters of becoming pivotal
which they are still willing to wait for the bidding before or right after the elections.

1
To reach the research objectives, series of interviews were conducted among the participants. Its
main objective is to understand the factors affecting the participants (Voters) in vote selling and
the implications of vote-buying among 12 participants in one of the municipalities of the
province of Isabela. In obtaining it, the following information were gathered from the
participants: 1.) their profile, 2.) the factors affecting of vote-selling; and 3.) the implications of
vote-buying.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This study used the Phenomenological Research Design. This Phenomenology was utilized to
explain the existence of vote-buying as a current phenomenon in Philippine politics particularly
in the province of Isabela. The qualitative approach was appropriate in this study because the
data collected and used focused on the participants’ subjective experiences in vote-buying and
vote-selling. There were 12 participants in this study and it was obtained by a purposive
sampling which resulted in saving time and money. The data were collected through personal
interview and phone call. An interview guide was generated using suitable questions modified
from related research and individual questions formed by the researcher. Furthermore, an
informed-consent was signed by the participants prior to the conduct of the interview intended
for ethics principle and to guarantee their willingness to be included in the study, but the
researcher assures the confidentiality of the participant’s identity. A voice recording device was
used as a guiding tool to obtain answers that are sensitive to interpretation in personal interviews.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
PROFILE OF THE PARTICIPANTS AND THE FACTORS OF VOTE-SELLING.
Table I. Profile of the participants.

Highest Educational
Name of Participants Age Sex Monthly net income Occupation Attainment

Participant 1 23 Male P0-P5,000 Student College-Undergraduate

Participant 2 19 Female P0-P5,000 Student College-Undergraduate
Participant 3 23 Male P5,001-10,000 Resto-Bar Crew College-Undergraduate
Participant 4 20 Female P0-P5,000 Student College-Undergraduate
Participant 5 25 Male P10,001-P15,000 Nurse College Graduate
Participant 6 25 Male P5,001-10,000 Bank Teller College Graduate
Participant 7 26 Male P0-P5,000 None High School Graduate
Participant 8 39 Male P5,001-10,000 Government Master’s Degree
Employee Graduate
Participant 9 23 Male P0-P5,000 Government Aide High School Graduate
Participant 10 40 Male P0-P5,000 Laborer High School Graduate
Participant 11 38 Female P0-P5,000 House Keeping High School Graduate
Participant 12 40 Female P0-P5,000 Farming High School Graduate

Table I showed that in this study, 8 or (67%) were male and 4 or (33%) were female. Also, it
showed that the age of the participants ranged 19 to 40. Seven or (58%) out of twelve
participants are currently working. The majority of them (67 %) is earning zero to five thousand
pesos, and 5 or (41%) out of the total participants were only high school graduates.
I. Socioeconomic difficulties

2
 a. Financial Constraint
As a result, ten (83 %) out of twelve of the participants said that one of the factors affecting them
in vote selling is financial constraint. As participant 2 ,4,5 and 7 stated that;
“Umaasa na sila na may magvovote buying. Kailangan din ngpera. Gracia na hindi mo pa
kukunin, sila na nagbibigay ng pera di mo pa tatanggapin .(It is blessing for us so why refuse to
it.)

“mahirap, para saakin kakulangan talaga sa financial pagalan mo yung katulad ko lang din, pera
talaga yung isang nagsasabing mahirap talaga ako, kinukulangako sa pangangailangan kaya
tinanggap ko yung perang yun, kahirapan kasi talagaang nagtutulak sakin” (Final crisis is my
main reason why I accepted the offer and I am poor)

“mahirap kami kasi, Lalo’t wala pa akong trabaho. Walang pinagkakakitaan kaya tinaggap ko”
(We are poor, I have no job, no source of income so I accepted the offer)

“syempre father ko is once lang siya every 6 months nagkakaruon ng pera dahil of course he is a
farmer then ako sapat lang din yung kinikita para sa pang araw araw , so masasabi ko na
mahirapang buhay kaya siguro, kaya kung bakit kumapit din ako dun sa alok nila na nung nag
bigay sila is tinanggap ko pa rin” (It is because my father is a farmer and only have money after
6 months, and my salary is just enough for daily needs)

According to Amick (2016) Low income voters are significant to target because they sell their
votes at higher rates and because those votes are inexpensive to buy on average. From the
movement’s perspective, “poorer voters appear to be more vulnerable to offers than richer
voters.”

It follows the statement of Stokes (2013) that the same outlay of resources by the party will buy
more votes among poor than among wealthy voters.

As specified by Coronel & Chua(2004) the poor who build up the bulk of Filipino voters, have
been answerable for the sorry state of democratic politics and the low level of election
dissertation. Pundits, analysts, and media critics say that because of poverty, many voters are
vulnerable to support, vote buying, and simplistic letters. Poor people take the vote extremely
and while they are drawn to the fiesta atmosphere of elections and have harmful perceptions of
this political exercise as one that is prone to cheating and manipulation.

More significant, the IPC study’s qualitative data show that the selling of one’s vote is a coherent
and logical decision for deprived voters. Depending on how vote purchasing is done and the
voter’s individual situation, the money conventional from officials can be viewed by poor voters
in numerous ways (with “BREAD” (slang for “money” or “cash”). Such money can be
perceived: as Biyaya (a blessing or form of help (tulong).

Dixit & Londregan (2013) said A party that wants to win sufficient votes to get elected at the
lowest possible cost would start by giving the unfortunate person something, then the next
poorest, and so on until the party has acquired just enough votes to win. Vote buying starts at the
bottom not the top, of the income distribution.

3
This affirms the statement of Burgos (2013) cited Meliton Oso who is the director of the Jaro
Archdiocesan communal action center confirms that the eagerness of voters to accept the bribes
showed the level of poverty being suffered by majority of the voters.

b. Low level of education

This findings show that Two (17%) out of twelve of the participants stated that one of the factors
in their acceptance depends on their educational attainment. Participant 7 and 12 said;
“syempre pag ganun, yung mga tao sinasabi nila saamin na makikipila na ganun. Syempre pag
need mong pera, pupunta ka. High school lang kasi ang natapos ko wala naman mawawala. Kaya
feeling ko sige latta tanggapin na. Siya pang pera yan”. (I only finished High school, so I thought
there is nothing wrong with it hence, we badly need money so we just go on and receive)

“Grab the opportunity. Syempre sila kuya, kinuha naman nila yung pera, kinuha ko narin. Tsaka
maam e, High school Graduate lang din naman ako, ayun kinuhana rin naming yung mga alok
nila na tulong daw.” (I only finished High School so I grabbed the opportunity)

The 1987 Constitution of the Philippines stated under SUFFRAGE Art. 5 –Section 1. No
literacy, property, or other substantive requirement shall be imposed on the exercise of suffrage.

Meanwhile Yamsuan (2012)  Cited from Sen. Miriam D. Santiago that if the law also brings for
free public education up to high school level, why not make this the mandatory
educational requirement for voters? She stated that people cannot be misled when educated and
cultured. That the acceptance of the voters of the money, cash, and goods or on any offer from
the candidates hinge on the educational attainment of the voters.

These statements strongly affirms from Murillo, et.al., (2004) that parties immerse voters in
vote-buying networks and select their marks strategically with the intention of establishing
enduring links between clients and the machine. Prior research proposes that people receiving
gifts in exchange for votes tend to be poor and those who are less educated and exhibit high
levels of trade.

II. Fear of violence

One of the factors identified is fear of violence. Three (25%) out of twelve of the participants
emphasized that it is one of the factors that affects them. Participant 2, 4 and 8 highlighted;
“Malaki ang epektong vote buying, syempre yung mga tumanggap siguro ibinoto siguro kasi alam
nila yung kung sino ang mga nabigyan nila. May threat or Fear sa mga tao. Na sayo lang talaga
e kung iboboto mo o hindi” (There is a big impact of vote buying because of threat and fear of the
people)

“mahirap tanggihan yun kasi pag katinanggihan mo un iisipin nila na hindi ka nila kakampi, so
most of the time pag ka may ganung inaabot tinatanggap nalang namin” (It is so hard for us to
resist of the offer, they might think we are against the candidate so if there are offers, we just
intend to receive)

“Actually natakot ako noon nung ginuhitan Nila yung pangalan ko sa registered voters list, e kasi
bakit nila ginuhitan yun e kasi expected na iboboto mo sila automatic. Syempre may listahan sila
kung sino yung binigyan nila. Syempre parang narin matrace nila kung ibinoto mo sila”.

4
 (Actually, I am frightened when they underlined my name on the voters list when I received the
offer, maybe because we are expected to vote for that particular party and maybe so that they will
soon traced if we voted for that candidate)

The Zimbabwe Peace Project (ZPP) of 2016 said that previous elections across the world have
been considered by evident violence but the covert forms of violence which characterized some
by-elections are equally worrying as fear can escalate to open violence. Mazumdar (2013) added
that the Philippines is one of the fastest growing economies in the world, yet political violence
and exploitation are crippling the government.

This verifies the idea of The Committee to Protect Clean election, (2013) Elections in the
Philippines is a sight of pomp, pageantry, and bloody violence. It is merely competing
politicians and their supporters, or bystanders caught in the crossfire, who are killed. The
Committee published that the Philippines is classified third worst in the world, behind Iraq and
Somalia. Hence this became one of the major factors why voters are easily manipulated.

Erben, et.al,. (2004) believed that Electoral violence and intimidation can influence the
perception of the voters. While election violence can be measureable in terms of the number of
election-related deaths or incidents, the effects of less tangible means of coercion, intimidation,
and harassment can be more difficult. At the same time, it is generally acknowledged that
election-related intimidation occurs in local elections.

III. Lack of Information Dissemination

There are many laws relating to elections in the Philippines and the omnibus election code
governs all the elections in our country. However, despite the presence of these laws there are
still fraudulent activities and failures that occur during elections. Majority of the participants (9
out of 12) or 75% of them believe the government itself is doing little or nothing for them from
buying their vote. They were asked on their awareness of some of the election Laws existing in
the country. One of them confirmed and said:

“sa totoo lang dito saamin wala naman nagtuturo about that wala namang nag sasabi samin
about jan sa mga law law na yan wala naman yung mga omni omnibus na yan, sabi lang nila
election is election kung sinu lang yung gusto mong iboto ay Iboto mo kung sinu yung mga
tumatakbo mamili ka dun sa mga ilan man silang tumatakbo pero wala naman silang sinasabi
about dun sa mga election code election code sa mga pinagsasabi mo ngayun, pero sa totoo lang
ngayun ko lang narinig yang mga sinasabi mong code na yan” (In reality, no one taught us about
that Omnibus code, the only thing that they mentioned was to vote for who we want, it was my
first time to hear about that law”

Under the Omnibus Election Code, vote buying and vote selling are election offenses. The
penalty goes for both vote buyer and seller. [ CITATION Omn \l 1033 ]Sec. 264. Penalties. - Any
person found guilty of any election offense under this Code shall be punished with imprisonment
of not less than one year but not more than six years and shall not be subject to probation and
shall be fined of not less than ten thousand pesos.

Conferring to the [ CITATION Omn \l 1033 ] and one of the provisions is on the prohibition to
accept payments in exchange for votes which falls under vote-buying and vote-selling. But

5
despite of the existence of election laws, Lawrence, (2012) affirmed that both the 1995 study and
the 2003 update show that only a few were aware of the voter’s education being conducted by
unlike organizations and most of the people knew absolutely nothing about the omnibus election
code. Also, Santiago (2012) said but while elections allow voter participation, this participation
is misleading by lack of awareness among the voters.

According to Erben, Hagerdon, Jenness, et.al,. (2004) COMELEC did not implement an
effective voter education campaign. Not only is COMELEC bound by law to execute voter
education activities, it will help from making sure that voters know exactly how to vote properly.
Materials were developed very late or not at all and even when developed on time, little was
done to effectively disseminate the voter education materials. Poor design and limited
distribution rendered most of these materials useless.

IV. Vote- buying for all

The result of this study showed that all of the participants or (100%) agreed and stated that their
acceptance do not depend on the individual’s sex. As they stated;
“kahit naman anong sex, gender o lalaki man or babae jan ang pinag uusapan naman diyan e
yung mga bumoboto diyan, wala akong nakikitang problema diyan kung mapababae or
mapalalaki basta kailangan bigyan para masigurong.iboboto ka niya yun ang alam ko wala
namang pinipili yan.” (Sex is not dependent whether you are a male or female, there is a need to
give offers. And I can see that nothing is wrong with that.)

In contrast to other researchers, their findings showed that their acceptance to any kind of offer is
dependent on their sex or gender.

Tarouty, Blaydes ,et.al,. (2001) argued that vote brokers certainly do purchase the votes of both
male and female voters; it is perceived, however, to be easier to buy women’s votes and, as a
result, the majority of those bought are women, according to one press report.

Meanwhile Pedro and Wantchekon (2008) said that the result on gender gap has important
policy implications. In a given region or within a given ethnic group that the promise of
government jobs may be less attractive to women than to men because men are more likely to be
the beneficiaries or because women care more about such public goods as health and education.
However in this study, it is certainly proven that sex has no affiliation in their acceptance.

V. Implications of Vote Buying

a. Electoral Pattern

The findings show that all of the respondents (100%) stated that it has been part of their culture
among their village. It became the trend in their municipality. As what Participant 1 and 6
added;
“oo, kasi talagang trend yun noon e, halos lahat sabihin natin kumuha talaga, tsaka may
nakapagsabi rin noon na hindi naman masamang kumuha” (It became trend majority of the
people accepted the offers).

6
 “talagang patok yung vote buying, yan yung isa sa mga talagang nakaugalian na ng mga
kandidato pag dating sa election talagang di na maiiwasan yang vote buying nayan, yun na
talaga yun” (Vote-buying became well-known,it became the culture of the candidates during
election and it is inevitable).

This support the idea of Dekel, et.al., (2006) that in actual life, they consider the situation of up-
front vote buying as permitted. Voters try to sell their votes to those party with the uppermost
rate offer or bribe and not thinking that there is an assumptions of the voters of becoming pivotal
which they are still willing to wait for the bidding before or right after the elections.

The Parish Pastoral Council for Responsible Voting (PPCRV) (2013) also added that Politicians
are abusing the poverty of the people. Vote-buying is wrong and it is a sin. Just because it has
become a shared practice people think it does make it right.

a. Deprivation of Equal Access to Public Service and Opportunities

One of the implications of vote buying is Deprivation of equal access to public service and
opportunities. Two (17 %) out of twelve of the participants are aware of on the implications.
Participants 2 and 8 emphasized;
“Ang vote buying kasi negative in a way na hindi na nabibigyan ngkarapatan yung kalaban o
kung sino mang tumatakbong kalaban. Money machinery na ang katapat e. So advantage yun sa
nag ooffer, kawawa naman yung kalaban, Hindi fair. Advantage yun sakanila, ginamitan ng pera
kasi yung kalaban hindi naman nag vote buy”. (Vote buying is negative in a way that opponents
will have less chance of winning because of the use of money machinery)

As what Santiago (2012) said, for, our Constitution provides as a state policy that: "The State
shall guarantee equal access to opportunity for public service." Rich candidates buy, and the
uneducated masses are willing to sell, their votes. Rich contenders can afford to start
campaigning earlier than poor candidates, particularly through the medium of vote buying. Is
there equal access to public service for the rich and the poor?

According to the Commision on Human Rights (2004) everybody has the right to equal access to
public service and opportunities. That’s why people are encouraged not to engage any of the
election offenses to give justice to aspirants.

b. Avenue for Corruption

Corruption has been one of the major issues linked to vote buying and became one of its
implication and during the interview, one participant supported this idea. Participant 8 said;
“ Syempre ang susunod diyan e isipin mo yung laking ginastos nila for the election kung 5, 000
kamo na botante dito sa Municipality X , sa 500 na cash at 500 na groceries total of assuming
limang milyon kaagad, paano nila babawiin yun e galling sa sarili nilang bulsa, definitely isa yan
sa nagiging dahilan kung bakit nagiging corrupt ang mga opisyales natin, pagdating ng araw
babawiin nila yung ginastosnila during election” (Come to think of it, 5,000 voters multiplied by
One thousand pesos for the groceries and cash, so there will be 5,000,000 pesos for the expenses.

7
 It is one of the causes of corruption and probably sooner, they will reimburse that at the expense of
the people’s reserve)

Santiago (2012) highlighted that the most notorious distortion of the people's choice is electoral
corruption. But the most important problem is vote-buying, which expenses are usually from the
shadow of the economy. Robinson, et.al., (2001) Confirmed that politicians can either try to form
positions (informing voters on electoral abilities and following up on those pledges) or rely on
interceding clients that are by description credible with voters. This explains why public asset
and corruption are higher in young than in old democracies. As a result, this affirms the idea of
Lucky(2014) that another bad influence of money politics and vote-buying on moral supremacy
is that the winner in the elections when he occupies a public office that gives him charge to
public fund becomes more prone to exploitation. The higher the risk in vote-buying the better the
returns.

c. As Form of Debt of Volition

The dispensation of favors or rewards such as public office, jobs, contracts, subsidies, prestige or
other valued benefits by a patron (who controls their dispensation) to a client became prevalent
during election. Two (17%) out of twelve of the participants agreed and stated that it is already a
form of political patronage. Participant 1 said the common lines the candidates were;
“Ito yung kaunting pinag ambag-ambagan namin, pagpasensiyahan niyo na huwag niyo kaming
kamilutan sa darating na election, eh syempre siya din naman yung gusto ko” (These are the gifts
we came up with, don’t forget us on the day of election , and I want to vote for him)

One of the participants was given job order and he said;

“umo-over pa ngapo mam gaya ngapo nung saakin naoperan po akong trabaho eh since mahirap
lang namanpo kame mam tinanggap kopo yung offer at saka yung ibinigay po saakin nuon
malaking tulong narin po kasi yun saamin mam, sa hirap pong buhay ngkaroon po ako ng utang
na loob” (they offered me job, so accepted, I owe him)

The John Steve (2015) stated that the quality of Philippine democracy is being hampered by the
deficiency of political competition, noting a “highly clientelistic politics based on exchanges of
private goods for political support that includes vote buying.
A major drag on the Philippines’ development, this showed that vote buying has become a way
for political patronage and it’s one of the major concerns the country is now facing.

CONCLUSION

There were factors affecting the voters in their acceptance of the offers given by the local
election candidates such as; Socio-economic difficulty, Election Laws awareness of the voters
and Influence of Electoral violence. For this particular number of sample, the researcher came
into conclusion that:

Socioeconomic difficulty is one of the factors in the acceptance of the voters to any offer
whether it is given in cash or in any kind of goods. Which includes the voter’s financial
constraint and low level of education.

8
Fear of violence is also one of the factors that affect them in vote-selling. Due to number of
electoral violence and massive killings, acceptance is their way of avoiding any possible
violence.

Lack of information disseminations on election laws is one of the major causes of the vote-
selling. Due to lack of awareness, in a voter’s perspective, vote buying and vote selling are
permitted.

The implications of vote buying are 1.) Vote-buying became their electoral trend among the
community, 2.) it leads to deprivation of equal access to public service and opportunities because
aspirants were not given fair and just verdict due to money machinery became the edge of the
candidates; 3.) Is one of the causes of Corruption for the expenditures originated from the
shadow of the economy; 4.) And vote-buying became form of debt of volition in return for
particularistic favors.

RECOMMENDATIONS

In the light of the foregoing findings and conclusions, the following recommendations are
worth considering for the following;

1. The COMELEC should empower those socioeconomically unstable to work as non-partisan

watchers or manpower during election to mitigate the possible manifestation of vote buying.
2. The COMELEC should work in partnership with the non- partisan watchers, media and the
Philippine National Police to tighten the security before, during and after the election period
for a safer, smoother and peaceful election proceedings.
3. The government should perform and conduct programs and seminars that shall impart
awareness regarding the existing Election Laws.
4. The voters should vigorously participate with the media campaigns which advocacy is to
promote upright and clean election.

9
REFERENCES

ABCNEWS. 2013. Many Indonesians think vote-buying 'acceptable': poll. ABC NEWS.
Retrieved from http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-12-13/an-indonesia-
survey/5156638. Date Retrieved: February 18, 2017

Ambrose, J. r. 2010. After centuries of colony status, has this nation’s independence met
expectations? The real truth. Retrieved from https://realtruth.org/articles/070629-004-
tpsfs.html . Date Retrieved: September 10, 2016

Amick, J. 2016. Cash or Carry? Targeting Low Income Voters in Mayoral Election.
University o Texas. Retrieved from http://seareg.org/wp-
content/uploads/2016/05/2016_AmickSEAREGpaper.pdf. Date Retrieved October 12 ,
2016

Aneesa Mazumdar. 2013. Election Violence in the Philippines. Retrieved from

http://uchicagogate/2013/11/20/election-violence-in-the-philippines/
Date Retrieved: August 22, 2016

Ashley Dugger. 2011. Factors that Influence Voters. Retrieved from www.
academy/lesson/factors-that-influence-voters-.org Date Retrieved: February 18, 2017

Avulyte, M. R. 2012. NGOs combating vote buying. The electoral Knowledge Network.
Retrieved from http://aceproject.org/electoral-
advice/archive/questions/replies/146582017 .
Date Retrived: Ocober 10, 2016

Beck, C. 2014. Is vote-buying always bad for development? International Growth Center.
Retrieved from http://www.theigc.org/blog/is-vote-buying-always-bad-for-development/
Date Retrieved August 26 , 2016

Brusco, N. A. 2004. vote buying in argentina. Retrieved from

isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic925740.files/Week%2012/Brusco_Vote.pdf . Date
Retrieved: September 10, 2016

Canare, T. A. 2014. The 2013 Philippine Mid-Term Election:. Asian Institute of

Management. Retrieved from http://www.aim.edu/research-advocacy/research-and-
publications Date Retrieved October 12 ,2016

Commision on Elections of the Philippines. 1998. AN ACT INTRODUCING

ADDITIONAL REFORMS IN THE ELECTORAL SYSTEM. Retrieved from
http://www.comelec.gov.ph/?
r=References/RelatedLaws/ElectionLaws/OtherElectionLaws/RA6646 Date Retrieved
December 15, 2016

Commision on Human Rights. 2004. Article V, Suffrage, Philippine Constitution.

10
 Retrieved from http://www.chr.gov.ph/MAIN/about%20hr/advisories/pdf_files
Date Retrieved December 15, 2016

Coronel, D ,. Chua ,S. 2004. THE POOR. Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism.
Retrieved from http://pcij.org/stories/the-poor-vote-is-a-thinking-vote/

DANE. 2015. Poverty levels continue to fall in Colombia: Government. Retrieved from
http://miguelrueda.net/documents/Supplemental_Material_AJPS_acepted.pdf. Date
Retrieved: August 22, 2016

Davies ,E. 2006. Money Politics and Vote Buying in Nigeria: The Bane of Good Governance.
Research gate. Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/.../290838500_Money_Politics_and_Vote_Buying_in_Nig..
. Date Retrieved August 26 , 2016

Dekel, E., Jjackson, M. O., Wolinsky, A. 2006. Vote Buying General elections.
Retrieved from http:// www. google scholar Date Retrieved: February 18, 2017

Dixit, H., Londregan, E. 2013. Why and How? Vote Buying. Retrieved from
vote_Buying_Undemocratic.pdfhttp://campuspress.yale.edu
Date Retrieved October 12 ,2016

Erben, P., Hagerdon, B., Jenness, T. C., Smith, I. 2004. CEPPS Philippines Election
Observation Program. Retrieved from http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/pdacw958.pdf. Date
Retrieved December 15, 2016

Foundation, Asia. 2011. Dark Reality to Vote Buying in Thailand. Asia Foundation.
Retrieved from http://asiafoundation.org/2011/07/13/dark-reality-to-vote-buying-in-
thailand/ Date Retrieved: August 22, 2016

Greene, K. F. 2001. Why Vote Buying Fails:. University of Texas at Austin. Retrieved from
pd.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Greene-Why-Vote-Buying-Fails.pdf Date
Retrieved: August 22, 2016

Hanusch, M., & Philip Keefer.2013. Promises, Promises: Vote-Buying and the Electoral
... world bank. Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/.../260638021_Promises_Promises_Vote-Buying_
Date Retrieved December 15, 2016

Hicken, A., Leider, S., Ravanilla, N., Yang, D. 2002. Measuring Vote-Selling: Field
Evidence from the Philippines. Retrieved from
https://www.povertyactionlab.org/.../735%20Vote- Selling%20in%20Philippines%20...
Date Retrieved August 26 , 2016

Hicken, l., Leider, S., Ravanilla, N., Yang, D. 2010. Campaigns Against Vote-Selling in
the Philippines: Do Promises Work? University of Mitchigan. Retrieved from

11
 http://www.poverty-action.org/study/campaigns-against-vote-selling-philippines-do-
promises-work Date Retrieved: February 18, 2017

Holbo, J. 2012. selling votes. Crooked Timber.

Retrieved from http://crookedtimber.org/2012/01/20/selling-votes/
Date Retrieved December 15, 2016

Howard, L., Allen, K. 2016. Vote buying in nineteenth century US elections. Virginia
Voting Voce. Retrieved from http://sociallogic.iath.virginia.edu/node/192 .
Date Retrieved October 12 ,2016

Research associates from the Institute of Philippine Culture. 2016. Vote of the Poor 2016:
Bottom-up Perceptions of Electoral and Political Strategies. Ateneo de Manila
University. Retrieved from http://ateneo.edu/ipc/news/research/ateneo-led-study-
finds-vote-buying-logical-choice Date Retrieved August 26 , 2016

Laura, S. 2012. SUPPLEMENT TO “VOTE-BUYING AND RECIPROCITY”: QUOTES.

Retrievedfromhttps://www.econometricsociety.org/sites/default/files/9035_miscellaneous
_0.pdf. Date Retrieved: August 22, 2016

Lawrence, N. 2012. RESTUDYING THE FILIPINO VOTER TODAY. Retrieved from

http://www.ombudsman.gov.ph/UNDP4/wp-content/uploads
Date Retrieved August 26 , 2016

Lindbeck ,T., Weibull. 1987. Balanced-budget redistribution as the outcome of political

competition. Retrieved from ttps://www.jstor.org/stable/30024725
Date Retrieved August 26 , 2016

Lucky, O. O. 2014. Money Politics and Vote Buying in Nigeria: The Bane of Good
governance. www.mcser.org/journal/index.php/mjss/article/view/2463.
Date Retrieved: December 9, 2016

World Bank 2007 Promises, Promises: Vote-Buying and the Electoral. Documents & Reports -
World Bank. Retrieved from
documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/175361468152722912/pdf/WPS6653.pdf .
Date Retrieved: December 9, 2016

Magaloni, A. D.-C. 2012. Strategies of Vote Buying: Democracy, Clientelism, and Poverty
Relief in Mexico. stanford university. Retrieved from
web.stanford.edu/~magaloni/dox/2012strategiesvotebuying.
Date Retrieved: February 22, 2017

McCubbins E., Cox J. 1986. Swing voters, core voters, and distributive politics. Retrieved
from www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/cpworkshop/papers/Cox.pdf.
Date Retrieved: August 30, 2016

12
Moreira, R. A. 2012. NGOs combating vote buying. The electoral Knowledge Network.
Retrieved from http://aceproject.org/electoral-
advice/archive/questions/replies/146582017. Date Retrieved December 15, 2016

Morgan, K ., Vardy, G. 2009. vote Buying, Turnout Buying, and Other Strategies. Harvard
University. Retrieved from
dev.wcfia.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/mazucca_whogets.pdf.
Date Retrieved December 15, 2016

Morse, J. G., Mazzucca, S., Nitcher, S. 2009. Who gets Bought? Vote Buying and other
Strategies. Harvard Paper .edu. Retrieved from http:// www. google Scholar
Date Retrieved October 9 , 2016

Murillo, C., Stokes, F. A . 2004. buying, expropriating, and stealing votes. University
at Bufallo. Retrieved from
https://www.buffalo.edu/content/www/.../_jcr.../ARPS_MaresYoung_Final
Date Retrieved -Novermber 26 , 2016

Burgos ,N. Jr. 2013. Vote buying among poor rampant, says Catholic Church official
in Iloilo. Philippine Daily Inquirer. Retrieved from
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/516937/vote-buying-among-poor-rampant-says-catholic-
church-official-in-iloilo. Date Retrieved Novermber 26 , 2016

Omnibus Election Code Article XXII. 1985. Omnibus Election Code Article XXII.
Commission on elections of the Philippines . Retrieved from
http://www.comelec.gov.ph/?r=References/RelatedLaws/OmnibusElectionCode/OEC
Art22 Date Retrieved October 12 , 2016

Ocantos, E. G., Jonge, C. K., Nickerson, D. W. 2013. The Conditionality of Vote Buying
Norms:. research gate.net. Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/.../259546676_The_Conditionality_of_Vote-
Buying_Nor... Date Retrieved Novermber 26 , 2016

Parish Pastoral Council for Responsible Voting (PPCRV). 2013. Vote buying among poor
rampant, says Catholic Church official in Iloilo. Retrieved from
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/516937/vote-buying-among-poor-
Date Retrieved October 12 , 2016

Pedro Vicente. 2014. Is vote buying Good or Bad for the development? Retrieved from
http://www.theigc.org/blog/is-vote-buying-always-bad-for-development/
Date Retrieved October 12 , 2016

Philippine Daily Inquirer . 2015. http://opinion.inquirer.net/85424/political-patronage.

Retrieved from http://opinion.inquirer.net/85424/political-patronage.
Date Retrieved October 12 , 2016

13
Ramseyer, B,. Rosenbluth, J,, Nielson, S. A., Bloom, C., Malaney. 2001. How Do Rules and
Institutions Encourage Vote Buying? Retrieved from www-
personal.umich.edu/~ahicken/index_files/votebuying
Date Retrieved September 04, 2016

Republic Act No. 6646. Retrieved from

http://www.comelec.gov.ph/?r=References/RelatedLaws/ElectionLaws.
Date Retrieved January 20, 2017

Schedler, A. 2002. The comparative Politics of vote Buying. Massachusetts Institute of

Technology MIT. Retrieved from http:// www. google scholar .com
Date Retrieved January 26, 2017

The 1987 Constitution of the Philippines . PHILIPPINES. Retrieved from

http://www.gov.ph/constitutions/the-1987-constitution-of-the-republic-of-the-philippines
. Date Retrieved: August 29, 2016

Schedler, A. 2002. What Is Vote Buying? web.mit.edu/CIS/pdf/Schedler_2.pdf.

Date Retrieved December 15, 2016

Science, A. J. 2014. American Journal of Political Science. Retrieved from

https://ajps.org/2014/10/09/who-stigmatizes-vote-buying/
Date Retrieved October 25, 2016

Santiago, M. 2012. THE PROBLEM WITH ELECTIONS.

Retrieved from http://www.senate.gov.ph/press_release/2012/1122_santiago1.asp. Date
Retrieved December 15, 2016

Serra, G. 2016. Vote Buying with Illegal Resources: Manifestation of a Weak Rule of Law
in. The Journal of Politics. Retrieved from http://nbn-resolving.org/urn/resolver.
Date Retrieved January 26, 2017

Skarbek, E. 2016. Vote Buying and Political Business Cycles. Library and Economis
Liberty. Retrieved from
http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2016/05/vote_buying_in.html.
Date Retrieved October 25, 2016

Stokes, S. C. 2013. Is Vote Buying Undemocratic? Retrieved from

http://campuspress.yale.edu/susanstokes/files/2013 .Date Retrieved: January 12, 2017

Tarouty, Blaydes, L., & El, S. (n.d.). Women's Electoral Participation in Egypt: The
Implications of Gender for Voter Recruitment and Mobilization". Middle East
Journal. Retrieved from web.stanford.edu/~blaydes/Voters.pdf
Date Retrieved: September 1, 2016

The Committee to Protect Clean election. 2013. Incumbent Advantage an Voter

14
 Information. Retrieved from ai2-s2-pdfs.s3.amazonaws. net .
Date Retrieved: November 10, 2016

Vicente, P. 2008. Votes and Violence: Evidence from a Field Experiment in Nigeria. Pedro
Vicente. Org. Retrieved from www.pedrovicente.org/violence.pdf .
Date Retrieved:
September 22, 2016

Vicente, Pedro; Wantchekon. 2008. Clientelism and Vote Buying:. Oxford Review of
Economic Policy. Date Retrieved: January 29, 2017

Chan , S. 2011 ; Vote Buying: Democracy, Clientelism, and Poverty Relief in Mexico.
(n.d.). http://www.theigc.org/blog/Democracy.jdhadh .
Date Retrieved: January 29, 2017

Wang ,Z., & Kurzman L., 2011. Vote-Buying and Reciprocity - Econometrics Laboratory, UC
Berkeley. Retrieved from eml.berkeley.edu/~ffinan/Finan_VB.pdf .
Date Retrieved: September 21, 2016

Wantchekon G . 2003. CLIENTELISM. world politics. Retrieved from

www.nyu.edu/gsas/dept/politics/faculty/wantchekon/research/WP_0331.pdf
Date Retrieved: September 21, 2016

Winn, P. 2011. How to buy an election in Asia. Retrieved from

http://www.pri.org/stories/2011-07-21/how-buy-election-asia
Date Retrieved: September 30, 2016

Yamsuan, C. 2012. Santiago: Most voters, leaders not educated. Inquirer.net. Retrieved
from http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/312071/santiago-most-voters-leaders-not-educated
Date Retrieved: February 18, 2017

Yildiz, B. 2011. Vote Buying ? Open. doi:https://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=689010

Date Retrieved: December 1, 2016

Zimbabwe Peace Project. 2016. Intimidation and vote buying: Precursor to the 2018
elections. Retrieved from http://www.shutdownzim.net/2016/11/22/intimidation-vote
-buying- Date Retrieved: February 18, 2017

15