Election polls are made to assess how well the candidates are performing

during their campaigns. So far, the frontrunners of this year’s senatorial

elections are administration bets, based on the Pulse Asia survey results
released in March. Should we expect the May elections to yield the same
results?
In an interview with ANC’s Early Edition on Wednesday, April 24, Pulse Asia
Research Inc. president Ronald Holmes said pre-election surveys do not
create a bandwagon effect. He called the concept “more of a myth” and
maintained throughout the interview that news reports have the biggest
influence on voters.
“We’ve done our own surveys. We’ve asked our fellow academics to do their
own independent study because our own surveys show that if you ask people
what affected their vote—this is after the election, we give them a set of choices
including surveys—surveys end up to be about at the middle and only a small
proportion would say that their voting decision was influenced by the survey,”
Holmes said.
He said people turn to television news for information on who to vote for, and
that surveys have “little impact” on voters’ preferences.

However, we’ve done our own comparison to see how different the set of
winners of election surveys are versus the actual election outcome. What we’ve
found out is the elected officials in the past three election periods also led the
polls, especially those conducted closer to the election day.

To be sure, it would take a more in-depth study to know whether or not the
election polls conducted by research firms have a direct effect on the voting
preferences of the people.

But for the purposes of this article, we took a look at the past three election
periods (2010, 2013, 2016) and compared the results of the polls from the two
most popular social research institutions and polling bodies in the country—
Social Weather Stations (SWS) and Pulse Asia—to the actual election results.
We limited the data gathering to the senatorial race and compared only the
earliest and latest poll results to see how the voters’ preferences changed.

All information used in this article is readily available on both the SWS and
Pulse Asia’s official websites. For SWS, we utilized the search bar to filter all
election results and manually traced the oldest and latest survey results posted
for each election year.
(PRO) ASTO CHARLES
There are two reasons. One, they tell voters about the national mood vis-a-vis parties. Two, they can be
used to sway undecided voters, especially those who want to vote for the winner to ensure their vote
doesn't go waste. For this reason, opinion polls are becoming a political weapon. Each party
commissions and releases findings that show it will win.

Opinion polls are sample surveys. In theory, a representative cross-section of the population has to be
quizzed about their voting preferences. But, skew the sample such that you leave out the minorities, or
the migrants, or the educated, and you will get theanswer you want.

Hard to say. Right now, the country is seeing an avalanche of polls -- not only for states heading to polls
in the next two months, but also for the national elections in the middle of 2014. A lot can happen
between now and then to change voter minds. Also, given the ever-present temptation to manipulate
findings and the multiplicity of polls, it is possible that they might just become background noise for the
voter. Also, voters can change their voting preferences at the last minute. Especially with politicians
doling out pre-election freebies. For this reason, exit polls are considered more reliable than opinion
polls.

Just because there are made-to-order opinion polls, it doesn't mean opinion polls themselves are a bad
thing. They present one way in which voters can gauge the national mood. The question is: how does
one ensure the polls do not get manipulated?

Greater transparency. If a poll is claiming to sum up the national mood, it should also describe its
methodology --the size of the sample, its socio-economic profile, how the data was collected
(questionnaire, interview or phone), etc. The poll should also disclose ownership and track record of the
organisation that conducted the survey, and the client who paid for the survey. A good start would be to
ignore any survey that doesn't provide detailed answers to all of these questions.

https://m.economictimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/should-opinion-polls-on-elections-be-
banned/articleshow/25666070.cms
I think that one obvious advantage to the polling process would be that it provides a solid read to
candidates or elected leaders on the pulse of the public on specific issues. Polling enables the candidate
or leader to not be trapped in a vaccum, in which they are absent- minded of what the public feels on a
particular issue or idea. Polling is a way in which popular sovereignty is evident in that the voice of the
people in the political process can be heard. At the same time, the divulging of polling information
enables a larger discussion to be had about why the public feels the way they do and that reflects a
discussion about the nature of democratic sensibilities, something intrinsically good.

The disadvantage of polling as far as I see it is two fold. On one hand, the polling science is not exact.
Margin of error, conflicting sample populations, and the general temperament of people to change their
minds are all elements that can change polls. There is not an exactitude to polling. It is a sample look at
a general feeling. Yet, there is a tendency to deify the polls and live and perish by them. The idea of
being hung up on two percentage points cannot be a fulfilment of the democratic process. At the same
time, when elected leaders and candidates become victims to the polling process, something already
inexact, discourse is not increased, but rather curtailed. If a leader or candidate refuses to do something
because "the polling on the issue" does not look good, problems emerge. Finally, I would say that media
deification of the polling process, again something inexact, creates even more challenge. Consider the
exit polling process of Election Night 2000 in the state of Florida. Exit polling was revealed to be inexact
when networks flip- flopped their call on the state of Florida based on exit polling. In this, I think that
some significant questions can be raised about polling as used in the modern political setting

The Pros of Opinion Polling

1. A majority opinion can be determined without an election.

Opinion polls are an easy way to see how the general public is thinking or feeling about any given
subject. Instead of the costs of a referendum or an election on the issue, opinion polls can help those in
leadership to determine what the best response should be from the governing body. This applies in the
business world just as it does the political world.

2. Randomness helps to create more potential accuracy.

Because opinion polls are usually random interviews of average people within a core demographic, the
information is generally accurate when it goes outward to the feelings of the entire demographic.
Although small population samples hinder this process [100 people out of 100 million is hardly
reflective], large population samples can create some solid information.

3. Facts can help people identify thinking errors.

Many people form opinions based on what they see as relevant facts. If those facts can be proven false
thanks to data collected through opinion polls and other avenues, then it becomes possible for people
to find a way to change their mind or deepen their perspective. This happens because opinion polls give
people the opportunity to see their perspectives through the eyes of another.

4. It is highly affordable to complete.

To complete an opinion poll, all someone has to do is pick up a telephone or head out into the streets to
begin speaking with people. Many polls can be completed over the course of a day or two with very
minimal effort and then the data can be compiled to create relevant information
The Cons of Opinion Polling

1. The results can influence others in a negative way.

Opinion polls that are released in real-time can have a detrimental effect on certain population groups.
A classic example of this is during the US Presidential election every 4 years. Because there is a 3 hour
time difference from the East Coast and West Coast of the US, opinion polls that dictate a projected
winner when some states are still voting can influence the actions of others.

2. The results are not always accurate.

The answers given in an opinion poll are not always a true reflection of what a person’s opinion happens
to be. Opinions are nuanced and subtle, based on individual experiences and thoughts. A simple “yes” or
“no” doesn’t reflect those nuances at all. Someone might say “yes” to being pro-choice, yet their opinion
regarding the subject has varying degrees of nuance that might make it seem like they could say “yes” to
being pro-life as well.

3. Samples are only a random reflection of opinions.

The random sampling process helps to eliminate errors, but it also means that there is the possibility
that only a small sub-section of a targeted demographic has been interviewed for the poll. If you take
100 random people in any group from the street and ask them a question, there’s a chance that you
could 100 similar answers. That’s the nature of randomness.

4. People can try to alter the results of an opinion poll by providing false answers.
The one primary weakness of an opinion poll is that it must make an assumption that everyone
interviewed is telling the truth. If enough people got involved with a poll and wanted to alter the results
by giving false opinions, then the information would be skewed and no one would ever realize it.

The pros and cons of opinion polling show that it can be a good information gathering tool, but the
information collection should be taken with a grain of salt. It may not be a 100% accurate representation
of an entire demographic, but a large enough sampling can be a fair representation. That makes opinion
polling useful in a wide variety of ways.If you took a public opinion poll about polls, odds are that a
majority would offer some rather unfavorable views of pollsters and the uses to which their work is put.
Many potential respondents might simply slam down their telephones. Yet if you asked whether
politicians, business leaders, and journalists should pay attention to the people’s voices, almost
everyone would say yes. And if you then asked whether polls are, at least, one tool through which the
wishes of the people can be discerned, a reluctant majority would probably say yes to that too.
Several conundrums of public opinion polling are enfolded in this hypothetical tale. People of all kinds,
activists and ordinary citizens alike, regularly cite polls, especially those that find them in the majority.
But people are deeply skeptical of polls, especially when opinion moves in the “wrong” direction.

Some of their doubts are about pollsters’ methods. Do they ask the right questions? Are they
manipulating the wording of questions to get the responses they want? And whom did they interview?
Some of the doubts are wrapped up in a mistrust of the political parties, marketers, and media giants
that pay for the polls.

The imaginary example also shows that it matters greatly how the pollsters ask their questions.
Sometimes, respondents offer opinions on subjects about which they have not thought much and do not
care at all. People sometimes answer pollsters’ questions just to be polite—because they figure they
probably ought to have an opinion. That gives pollsters a lot of running room to “manufacture” opinion,
especially on issues of narrow rather than wide concern.

Even when people have strong views, a single polling question rarely captures those views well. Human
beings are complicated and so are their opinions. Using the findings of our example, enemies of polls
could cite the public’s doubts to “prove” that the public is against polls. Friends of polls could note that
the public, however grudgingly, agrees that polls are one tool for gauging public opinion and that
leaders should consult public opinion. They could thus “prove” that the public embraces polls. Both
ways of looking at the findings would use reality to distort reality.

This issue of the Brookings Review examines how polls work, what they can teach us about public
opinion, and what role public opinion does and should play in our democracy. We bring to this magazine
a straightforward bias in favor of polling, shaped, in part, by our early professional experiences. Mann
spent much of his graduate school time at the University of Michigan’s Survey Research Center and then
conducted polls for congressional candidates in the 1970s. Dionne did graduate work with a heavy focus
on public opinion and helped start the New York Times/CBS News Poll in 1975. We share a belief that
the study of what citizens think about politics and policy is a genuine contribution to democracy. It’s
especially important in democracies whose politicians claim their mandates from the people and
regularly insist that they represent the views and interests of the people. To ask the people, with
regularity, for their own thoughts strikes us as being both useful and a check on the claims of those in
power.

But it is precisely because of our respect for polling that we are disturbed by many things done in its
name. When interest groups commission pollsters to ask leading questions to gather “scientific” proof
that the public agrees with whatever demand they are making on government, they demean polling and
mislead the public. When analysts, sometimes innocently, use poll numbers as a definitive guide to
public opinion even on issues to which most people have given little thought, they are writing fiction
more than citing fact. When political consultants use information gathered through polling and focus
groups to camouflage their clients’ controversial policies with soothing, symbol-laden, and misleading
rhetoric, they frustrate democratic deliberation.

On many issues the public does not have fully formed and unambiguous views. That does not mean
there is anything wrong with the public. In a democracy, citizens are typically more concerned with
some matters than others, and most citizens are not continuously engaged in public affairs. Certain
obscure questions of public policy, while important, will never engage a mass public. Polling that does
not deal with these basic facts of democratic life is producing something other than real information.

Simpler methodological concerns also arise. Some surveys are more carefully produced than others.
Quick and cheap surveys and focus groups can be useful to, say, marketers and campaign managers who
need information fast—and know its limits. But it is often difficult for the public and even professionals
to be certain about the quality of the data they see, let alone whether broad conclusions from such data
are even justified. Declining response rates, emerging technologies, and early voting are posing yet more
obstacles for even the most responsible of pollsters.

Public opinion is an illusive commodity. Attempts to measure it, as Samuel Popkin argues in The
Reasoning Voter, will perforce reveal inconsistency and change. These problems arise, Popkin insists,
not because the public is insufficiently educated, informed, or motivated. “Ambivalence is simply an
immutable fact of life.” As a consequence, citizens use information shortcuts when making decisions in
the political arena-with new and personal information driving out the old and impersonal. With the
public lacking fixed preferences on many issues, political actors have ample incentive to supply those
shortcuts in ways that might broaden support for themselves and the policies they champion.

Relationships between citizens and leaders, between public opinion and democratic governance, are
complex. Many fear that contemporary politicians too often put their fingers to the wind of public
opinion in deciding what policies to advance. Yet the very fragility and ambiguity of public opinion make
the use of polls problematic as a direct, dominant guide to formulating public policy. President George
W. Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair clearly sought to lead their publics on the need to disarm and
depose Saddam Hussein in Iraq. Both largely succeeded.

But pandering to public opinion and leading public opinion do not exhaust the ways in which political
leaders and citizens interact. Politicians can be sensitive to underlying public values while leaning against
current public preferences. In response to public concerns, they can, as Bush did by going to Congress
and to the UN Security Council for authorization to move against Iraq, adjust the process without
changing the content of their policy decisions. Politicians and interest group leaders can also shape—
and manipulate—public opinion to build broad nominal support for policies mainly serving the interests
of their core supporters. This natural dynamic of politics has, in the era of the permanent campaign,
dramatically increased the artificiality and disingenuousness of much public discourse.

Polling is a tool, not a principle. The authors in this issue come neither to praise nor to bury polling. They
do, however, acknowledge how important it has become in our democracy. They stress Ronald Reagan’s
“trust but verify” rule. And they urge us to remember the great difference between the idea that the
people should rule and the use of polls to determine public policy or manipulate the people’s will. We’re
sure the people agree with us. If you doubt that, just take a poll
Is It Important to Know Public Opinion?

Is it important in a democratic nation to find out how the public feels about popular issues? If so, should
the public’s viewpoints be found out somehow when important issues actually face the country? Or are
the people too badly informed or indifferent to have dependable opinions?

Public opinion is, in fact, recognized as an important force in statecraft. In countries ruled by
dictatorships every effort is made to keep the public in line by allowing only one point of view to be
heard. No free play of public opinion is permitted.

What’s public opinion to a democracy?

In a democracy like ours it is an accepted idea that the public which is called upon to make important
decisions at the ballot box must be kept informed of popular issues. It is also an important principle of
our governmental system that public policies are decided upon by the people. Popular control over
lawmaking bodies, over executives in the government, and over domestic and foreign policy is a basic
idea in our political society. The people are the source of power. Hence their opinions should mold the
action of government.

The successful life of our government operating under these principles justifies our faith in the people’s
good judgment. We believe that once the public’s views on public issues are known and acted upon, our
government will be improved rather than damaged. It is often said that only those who distrust the
public and the soundness of its judgment need fear an expression of its views.

Do elections tell enough?

Can we get enough information to keep us and our representatives informed of the trend of public
opinion from elections held at regular intervals? Are our public problems so simple that they can be
solved merely by a show of hands? That question was raised in the last century by a close student of
American government, James Bryce, British ambassador to the United States. In his American
Commonwealth, Bryce made the following comment:

“The obvious weakness of government by opinion is the difficulty of ascertaining it. ... The one positive
test applicable is that of an election, and an election can at best do no more than test the division of
opinion between two or three great parties. ... An American statesman is in no danger of consciously
running counter to public opinion, but how is he to discover whether any particular opinion is making or
losing way, how is he to gauge the voting strength its advocates can put forth, or the moral authority
which its advocates exert? Elections cannot be further multiplied, for they are too numerous already.”

Bryce wrote on this subject before the modern polls had been developed. Nevertheless, he looked
forward to the time when in a democracy the viewpoint of the people could “become ascertainable at
all times.” Regular reports on the people’s views would stimulate the discussion of public affairs. They
would assist, therefore, in the development of public opinion, and according to Bryce,
“It is the existence of such a public opinion as this, the practice of freely and constantly reading, talking,
and judging public political rights, that gives to popular government that educated, and stimulative
power which is so frequently claimed as its highest merit.”

Do polls stimulate discussion?

Can the polls contribute, then, to this stimulating discussion of public affairs by focusing attention on
current issues? The Gallup Poll, for example, in the summer of 1943 inquired into public viewpoints on
social security legislation. Asked whether the Social Security program should be changed to include
farmers, domestic servants, government employees, and professional persons, the persons interviewed
answered

Yes                              64%

No                                19%

Undecided                    17%

Similarly, the polls have tried to find out how much information people have on public affairs. Early in
1945 the Gallup Poll called attention to the lack of knowledge among American voters on the machinery
of government. The results showed up a gap in the public’s knowledge of government which might be
filled by the information agencies that reach the people of the country. Only 38 percent of the persons
interviewed throughout the country knew the length of a representative’s elected term of office in
Congress and only 30 percent knew how much a Congressman is paid.

On the other hand, the Fortune survey in a poll conducted in 1944 tried to find out what people thought
were the big public issues at that time. A cross section of the population was asked, “Which two or three
of these things do you think are the most important to America?” The choices and the results were

What should be done about preventing unemployment after the war          68.2%

The part the U. S. should play in world affairs after the war                     59.3%

Peace terms to be given Germany                                                          38.5%

Future social security provisions                                                             32.2%

Don’t know                                                                                           4.2%

If this poll accurately reflected the public’s views, could it have stimulated further discussion of these
topics and informed government officials of the trend of popular opinion? Is this kind of information
useful to the public?
ALTHOUGH SOME candidates have been campaigning since the fourth quarter of 2018, the election
period only began officially this month, on January 13. In preparation for the midterm polls in May,
security measures, including the setting up of checkpoints and the gun ban are in place.

The official campaign period begins on February 12 for the Senate and party-list groups; and on March
29 for congressmen and local officials.

Philippine elections highlight public opinion surveys, which have become a staple of election coverage as
media take note of pollsters’ findings about voter preferences and levels of public awareness about
candidates for public office.  

As usual, much of  media’s coverage of the election surveys at the start of this year highlight the horse
race aspect of the election, focusing on ranking of  this or that candidate and who’s ahead of whom. 
Critics of such publicity for those leading the polls point out that narrowly focused reports on how
candidates are doing can and often does, condition the public into voting for the candidates that voters
believe are likely to win this May.

Most of media’s coverage in early January focused narrowly, not doing more than listing the names
within the circle of the magic number “12.”

Following the Surveys

The following observations are based on a review of coverage of the broadsheets Manila Bulletin,
the Philippine Daily Inquirer and The Philippine Star; primetime newscasts 24 Oras (GMA-
7), Aksyon (TV5), News Night (CNN Philippines) and TV Patrol (ABS-CBN 2); as well as selected news
websites from January 1 to 13, 2019.

On January 9, TV news reported the findings of Pulse Asia’s “Ulat ng Bayan” national survey on the May
2019 senatorial elections. Newspapers followed suit the following day in their January 10 edition. The
survey, conducted on December 14 to 21, cited the lead of two incumbent senators, Grace Poe and
Cynthia Villar, who are seeking renewal of their terms. The reports also listed the rankings of other
candidates in the same poll.

Surveys on local elections, such as the mayoral race in Manila and in Makati, were also reported.

CMFR noted reports published earlier on January 2 by the Bulletin and Star which cited a poll by the
Social Weather Stations (SWS), supposedly conducted on December 16 to 19, which also noted Poe’s
and Villar’s lead in the senate run.

The said survey, however, did not appear in other newspapers or TV news programs. CMFR did not find
this particular poll in the SWS website itself. CMFR asked SWS for information on this particular poll. The
SWS representative who took CMFR’s call, Leo Laroza, confirmed that the poll cited in the reports is not
in their website, pointing out that they cannot comment on information related to such surveys. So
SWS, according to their policy, could not even confirm whether this particular poll was a commissioned
poll.

This case highlights the importance of media making clear the source of the survey related news. Such
publicity can easily serve the purpose of creating a “bandwagon effect — the impact of such publicity on
undecided voters who would be more likely to vote for candidates who rank high in the surveys.

Rote Reporting and More

Most news accounts of survey findings during the monitoring period only reported the rankings of
candidates and the candidates’ opinion of the poll results. These did not offer any interpretation as to
what the survey results could mean this early in the election season.

Neither did media describe survey methodology: how the surveys were conducted or how the survey
questions were presented. Were respondents asked directly who they were going to vote for; were they
given a list and asked to rank the names in the list? Were respondents cued with names and asked
whether they would vote for the candidates named? How the questions were presented is a crucial
aspect of the exercise as these could influence the results.

Unfortunately, such information was limited to sample size of respondents and the dates the surveys
were done.

Only TV Patrol deviated from the routine reporting of the surveys. In its January 11 report, the newscast
interviewed political science professor Julio Teehankee of the De La Salle University and Ramon Casiple,
executive director of the Institute of Political and Electoral Reform asking them to explain what the Pulse
Asia survey could mean for the opposition candidates. Both agreed that winning in the elections would
be a challenge for the opposition slate, and that their being a government critic could work against
them, given President Rodrigo Duterte’s high popularity.

Value of Polling Information

The value of polling information is obvious for candidate-stakeholders as these can flag issues and
geographical areas on which they need to invest more campaign resources. For this reason, candidates
spend money to find out how well they are doing in the polls.

The public rooting for certain candidates can also use the information and think about ways of
improving the chances of their winning.

Influencing Voter Opinion?

A common concern associated with election surveys is their capacity to influence voters. SWS president
Mahar Mangahas recalled in a paper he wrote in November 2009 how politicians are often antagonistic
toward the idea of revealing poll results, pointing out the power of election surveys “to influence the
vote.”
There have been efforts to ban election surveys in the past. In 1998, the Comelec attempted to ban exit
polls for that year’s presidential elections. ABS-CBN, which partnered with the SWS for the exercise,
petitioned for a temporary restraining order to allow them to proceed, which the Supreme Court (SC)
granted. The order was later made permanent in 2000 after the Court ruled that exit polls “form part of
free expression and are entitled to constitutional protection.”

In 2001, an anti-survey Senate bloc succeeded in incorporating an election survey ban in a new Fair
Election Act, which originally sought to lift election advertising in media. Section 5.4 of the law banned
the publication of surveys fifteen days before national elections and seven days before local elections.
SWS and the Manila Standard petitioned the SC to nullify the provision because it is a violation of
freedom of expression. The SC ruled that it indeed was unconstitutional.

Mangahas recalled these landmark rulings in the same paper, emphasizing that election surveys are
protected by the constitutional guarantee of freedom of expression.

This year on January 21, a senatorial candidate lagging in the polls filed a petition with the Commission
on Elections (Comelec), asking the agency to stop Pulse Asia and SWS from publishing pre-election
survey results which he claimed were “bogus” and part of a “mind-conditioning scheme.”

As media have included these polls as part of the election campaign coverage, journalists and editors
should make sure the reports include more information that will help voters make their decision. Media
should mitigate the impact of so-called “mental conditioning” and help voters think more clearly about
the process by which they decide to cast their votes. Election coverage should not be limited to the
horse race and media should not allow themselves to be used by campaign managers as vehicles for
their campaign material.

BusinessMirror noted similar concerns when it reported a roundtable discussion with reporters on

January 16. Casiple pointed out that politicians benefit from commissioned surveys, not the voters “who
are still deciding and are not yet serious” — referring to whether they had already made up their minds.
He also called out the use of commissioned surveys by politicians to create a bandwagon effect, arguing
that surveys are “a policy tool (to be used in) making policies” and “should not be used for propaganda.”

Describing it as “snapshots” that change over time, Casiple said election surveys can only surface “top of
mind” information, which simply draws out the voter’s awareness of a certain candidate. This accounts
for a certain candidate’s high or low placement in survey results, but does not necessarily mean it will be
the same come election time, the report explained.

Helping inform voters

The impact of candidate’s rankings in the surveys will gain wider public interest as May approaches. If
the media want to help voters make educated decisions, it must produce more meaningful reports and
make sense of what the surveys indicate: more of the same names in Congress, more of the same kind
of laws, the same kind of politics.
Coverage should also broaden the selection process by providing more information for every candidate;
and to equalize the media’s publicity impact, reports should favor the balance toward lesser known
candidates with more accounts that recall track records that deserve public attention.

Otherwise, survey reports will serve little more purpose than the benefit of publicity that confirms the
hold on voters of already popular candidates.
Pre-election surveys: What can voters do if they don’t like the results?

'Whether you're dissatisfied or not that many people are going to vote for a particular candidate, the
question is what are you gonna do about it?' statistician Jose Ramon Albert says

SURVEYS. Statistician Jose Ramon Albert says surveys can help give information that shows the current
landscape. Screenshot from Rappler video

MANILA, Philippines – The influence of pre-election surveys on voters is undeniable, but what matters is
how people will use the results to further their cause before the May 13 polls, statistician Jose Ramon
Albert said. 

“[Results] are going to affect us somehow but the question is, to what extent will be the effect? Because
it could be positive, negative, or it could be neutral,” he told Rappler editor-at-large Marites Vitug in an
interview.  

For ordinary voters, the results of these surveys can be considered “extra information” that can
condition people during their discernment period prior to voting come election day. (READ: Survey says:
How 2019 senatorial bets are faring so far) 

According to Albert, this is similar to television advertisements that help people “make decisions on
whether or not they should make the shift in their choices.” 

But results can also be a guide for people to do something about the possible outcome, especially if they
are not favorable to what they want. 

“Whether you're dissatisfied or not that many people are going to vote for a particular candidate, the
question is, what are you gonna do about it? So are you going to sit in your corner and accept the
situation as is or are you going to get out and help other people and convince them not to vote for the
candidates you don't like or vote for those you do like?” Albert said

Surveys, which come aplenty during the election period, are useful for teams to gauge a candidate’s
chance to join the winning circle. In fact, campaigns are often built around survey numbers.
(READ: Scenarios: 2022 looms over tight midterm race)

There are quite more than a handful of polling firms in the Philippines that release results in different
periods on different topics, including the elections. 

While these firms often differ in several factors, including their methodology and sampling size, what’s
important for the public to know and judge is their track record. 

Survey organizations should also be transparent in the way they collect data, according to Albert. And in
some instances, especially in commissioned surveys, the person or institution who paid for it should be
disclosed. 
“If the organization wants to protect their integrity, then these commissioned surveys will still have the
same value [with the regular surveys],” he said. – Rappler.com