PANGASINAN STATE UNIVERSITY

Lingayen Campus

PA 104
Politics and Governance
Lecture Notes

POLITICAL PARTIES

Party Categories

Heywood defines a political party as a group of people that is organized for the purpose of
winning government power, by electoral or other means. This definition is applicable to the Philippines,
but because politicians change parties so often in our country, we could well define a political party as a
group of people with hared hatreds. Heywoods’s classification of political parties is as follow

 Cadre – a group of trained and professional party members (Ex: The Old Soviet Union)
 Mass Parties – a group placing heavy emphasis on attracting as many members as possible (Ex:
Republican and Democratic Parties of the United States)
 Representative – its primary function as the winning of as many votes as possible (Ex: Any Major
Party in the Philippines)
 Integrative Parties – its primary function as the mobilization and education of the masses (Ex:
U.K. Concervatives under Margaret Thatcher)
 Constitutional – one which operates within a framework of rules (Ex: Any major party in a
liberal democracy)
 Revolutionary Parties – one that is antisystem or anticonstitutional (Ex: Nazi Party in Germany
and Fascist Party in Italy)
 Left-wing – one committed to change
 Right Wing parties – one committed to continuity of existence of the existing social order

Under the scheme formulated by the Frecnh political scientist Maurice Duverer, there are three
categories of political party:

 Mass party – Western democratic parties

 Cadre party –Chinese Communist party and India’s Congress Party
 Devotee party – Nazi Party in Germany and many political parties in Third World developing
countries

Roskin, et al, classify political parties according to party ideology, within a left to right spectrum,
as follows:

 Left-wing parties – they seek to level class differences by nationalization of major industries. Ex:
Communist
 Center-left parties – they seek to expand the welfare state without nationalization. Ex: Socialist
parties of western Europe
 Centrist parties –are liberal in social issues but conservative on economic issues. Ex: liberals in
Germany and Italy
 Center-right parties – they want to reduce the welfare state in favor of free enterprise. Ex:
Christian Democrats in Germany
 Right-wing parties – they want to dismantle the welfare state, break the power of labor unions
and promote capitalist growth. EX: U.K. Conservatives under Thatcher

Jacobsohngives his own classification of political parties, as follows:

 Mass party – where inscription into a party list is not necessary.

 Ideological party – subscribes to a belief system and rigorously defends the correctness of the
party’s choice.
  Pragmatic party – will do whatever necessary in order to gather the highest level of support
during elections.
 Personalistic party – funded ad controlled by one person for the sole purpose of getting elected
to the highest executive position.

Jacobsohn suggests that despite the various nomenclatures, political parties can be generally
divided into: conservative and liberal. A conservative partyemphasizes the importance of tradition in
policy-making. It also labors under the principle that the government should protect tradition, and instill
reverence for tradition among the people. By contrast, a liberal party advocates state intervention in the
economy. This advocacy is based on two ideas: protection from the rich- and transfer of wealth from
rich to poor. However, according to Jacobsohn, the two ideologies of conservatism and liberalism have
lost most of their meaning.
In his view, despite the common need for stability, high technology has changed our entire way
of life. The result is that we demand more and better services from government. Thus, conservatism has
lost meaning. Similarly, since modern society emphasizes uniformity in education, lifestyle and work
habits, individualism and economic equality have lost relevance. Thus, liberalism has also los meaning.
Jacobsohn’s conclusion is: In short, unless we turn the conservative-liberal dichotomy into a theory of
developmental psychology, neither conservatism nor liberalism will provide any meaningful
understanding for the political and social reality around us.
Despite the various classifications given above, most ruling parties in democratic governments
today are catchall parties, under a term coined by the German political scientist Otto Kirchheimer. This
term also applies to the major political parties in the Philippines. A catchall party is one that is
ideologically relaxed. Since a catchall party is usually big and is therefore characterized by many
viewpoints, it is often broken up into factions. A faction is a smaller group within the party, normally
engaged in debilitating infighting with other factions.
With so many categories of political party suggested by various political scientists, perhaps the
best way to classify political parties is by means of certain criteria. As proposed by Roshkin, et al., the
criteria for party categories consist of four questions:
 Who supports the party? –A party is either broad-based or a narrow-interest party.
 What is the party’s membership policy? – A party is either open or close in its membership
requirements.
 How are candidates chosen? – The party may choose candidates either by means of political
conventions, or by he party hierarchy.
 What are the party’s goals? – A party is either seeking to win office and governmental control,
or merely seeking to send a message to the big parties.

Party Functions
The main function of a political party is to fill political office and wield government power. In
discharging this central function, the political party also performs a variety of functions, among which
are:

 Representation
The political party responds to, and articulates, the views not only of the party members, but
more importantly of the voters. The political party is a major inputting device, which allows citizens
to make know their needs and wishes to government. The political party unites, simplifies and
stabilizes the political process. It brings together sectional interests and overcomes geographical
distances. The latter is a particularly important function in an archipelago like the Philippines. The
party is also provides a link between government and people by educating, instructing and activating
the electorate
.
 Elite formation and recruitment
The political party provides a training ground for politicians. It is the party which equips
politicians with skills, knowledge, experience and some career structure. The party recruits political
leaders. Thus, the party is distinguished from traditional elites such as political dynasties, religious or
military organizations.
  Goal Formulation
The political party formulates a program of government through the party convention, election,
platform, etc. In this way, the party initiates public policy options. However, the function of policy
formulation has been minimized, because of the trend toward the catchall party. Another factor that
reduces the impact of policy formulation by party, is the modern tendency for electoral campaigns
to stress personality and image over policy issues. The political party set value goals for the society.
This function is illustrated by the ideological party.

 Interest Articulation and Aggregation

The political party is often a vehicle for the expression of various interests, such as those of
business, labor, religion, ethnic and other groups. The parties aggregate separate interests into a
larger organization and thus help to reduce conflicts between interest groups.

 Socialization and Mobilization

The political party engages partisan sympathies and attracts emotional attachments. By
encouraging groups to participate in democratic process, the party mobilizes interest for a
democratic regime. However, the function of socialization – like the function of goal formulation –
has been minimized by the modern phenomenon of partisan dealignment, define as a decline in the
extent to which people align themselves with a party by identifying with it. In the Philippines,
partisan dealignment among voters is caused by growing disenchantment with traditional politics,
the Filipino vernacular for corrupt politics, particularly the politics of money. The political party
serves as the training ground for talented leaders. In addition, the party introduces candidates and
elected officials to the citizenry, thus giving citizens a sense of participation within the system. The
political party raises the voter interest. Normally this function should boost voter turnout; but when
the people lose faith in the party system, this function could produce the opposite effect, meaning
low voter turnout on Election Day.

 Organization of Government
The political party gives the government a degree of stability and coherence. This function is
best discharged in a parliamentary form of government. When the political party wins in a election,
it is able to fill up government vacancies and acquires power in attempt to shift government policy.

PARTY SYSTEM

There are several methods for classifying party systems. One method is based on the number of
parties competing for power. Another method is based on the size of the political parties. And a third is
based on the relationship of the relevant parties to one another, which could range from cooperation to
conflict. Most authors use the first method, by basing party system categories on the number of parties.

 One-Party System
In this system, a single party enjoys a monopoly of power. All other parties are excluded. The
one-party system is usually associated with totalitarian regimes of the left or the right. This system is
now rarely found, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the changes in Eastern Europe and changes
in Africa. It is exemplified by North Korea and Cuba.

 Two-Party System
In this system, two major parties with roughly prospect of winning government power dominate
the field. It is exemplified by the U.K and the U.S. Because the two contenders for power have to
battle for floating and swing votes, the two-party system is biased in favor of moderation. The
system, as in the U.K., will often display a tendency toward adversary politics, characterized by
ideological polarization and emphasis on conflict.
Ball writes of two kinds of two-party systems: the distinct and the indistinct. The distincttwo-
party system is exemplified by New Zealand, where the legislative assembly consists of only two
major parties. The indistinct two-party system is exemplified by the Irish Republic and the U.s>,
where the differences between the two major parties are not clear-cut. The parties lack centralized
hierarchical structures.
  Dominant Party System
In this system, several parties contest the elections, but government is usually dominated by a
single major party that enjoys prolonged periods in power. This was the case in the Philippines
during the administration of Marcos, under the regime of the constitutional dictatorship. During that
regime, elections were contested by several parties, but were always dominated by President
Marcos’ Party KilusangBagongLipuna.
This system is exemplified by India, Japan and Mexico. But this system is marked by several
disadvantages. It tends to erase the constitutional distinction between the state and the party in
power. The dominant party, because of its extended period in power, faces strong temptation to
become compalacent, arrogant and corrupt. The system produces a weak and ineffective
opposition. It is antidemocratic, because it leads the electorate to be afraid of change.

 Multiparty System
In this system, more than two parties complete, thus increasing the likelihood of coalitions
among them. Ball classifies the multiparty system into two: the stable and the unstable. In the stable
multiparty system, the ideological differences between the parties are muted, leading to stable
coalitions. In the unstable multiparty system, party ideologies constitute a basic problem of
coalition-building, resulting to unstable governments.
The advantage of multiparty system is that it creates checks and balances within government
and encourages debate, conciliation and compromise. But one disadvantage is that the multiparty
system encourages unprincipled post-election negotiations and horse-trading. Another disadvantage
is that in its pursuit of negotiation and conciliation, a multiparty system might be compelled to
abandon conviction and the politics of principle.
The multiparty system is exemplified by Israel, Italy, Netherlands, Sweden and Norway.

 Two-Plus Party System

In this system, there are two major parties, with one or more relevant smaller parties. It is
exemplified by Germany, Austria, Britain and Spain. Perhaps the U.S. should be added to this list,
because there have always been third parties in America.
The Philippines could also be categorized under the two-plus party system. Every election is
contested by the in party and the out party. But the constitution theoretically provides for a
multiparty system, in every election, in addition to the large parties, there is always a constellation
of relevant smaller parties. For example, in the 1992 presidential elections, the in party was the
Lapian ng Demokratikong Pilipino, while the out party was the opposition’s Nationalist People’s
Coalition. While it was the LDP presidential candidate who managed to get himself proclaimed, for
the first five days of the tabulation, the leading presidential candidate came from a newly-formed
party, People’s Reform Party.
It is extremely important for a democracy to maintain a competitive party system, regardless of
the number of parties. One party system will inevitably end in corruption. For power corrupt, and
absolute powers corrupts absolutely. One of the more effective ways of checking corruption is to
encourage the out party to engage in constructive criticism against the in party.

Antiparty Movement

In the Philippines, political parties – both the in and out – are declining as agents of
representation, and as effective links between the government and the people. After the Philippine
gained independence, the two major independence movements in the country were transformed into
the Nacionalista and the Liberal Parties. In postwar politics, the two parties regularly alternated in
power: this environment fulfilled political expectations engendered peace and stability in the political
system.
However, in the 1980’s, a crisis of party politics developed. Turncoat politicians jumped from
one party to another, like restive fleas. The result is partisan dealignmet among the citizenry. The voters
no longer bother to identify themselves as party partisans. The tendency is for active voters to identify
themselves as party partisans. The tendency is for active voters to identify themselves as partisans, not
of a party, but of a certain candidate.
Parallel to partisan dealignment in the Philippines, an antiparty movement developed, and was
exemplified by the establishment and near-victory of the People’s Reform Party in the People’s Reform
Party in the 1992 presidential election. The PRP presidential candidate virtually prevailed in the
elections, on a platform not only of reform, but also of antipolitics. The PRP presidential candidate had
never occupied elective public office, and became immensely popular, because of antipathy toward the
traditional ceneters of power, and opposition to the traditional parties.
The PRP, with its simple basic platform of reform in the culture of corruption, constituted a
single issue protest group that attracted astonishing nationwide membership and support, particularly
from among young professionals and university students. As an antiparty party, PRP started the trend of
subversion of traditional party politics. It rejected political compromise, and emphasized popular
mobilization. Its presidential candidate placed a very close second, after leading in the canvassing of
votes for the first five days. Thus PRP marked the decline of the traditional parties.
There are a number of reasons for this decline. The traditional parties are tainted by the power,
ambition, and corruption of high office. Traditional offices are objects of disillusionment and cynicism,
because they have consistently failed to deliver on their electoral promises, to solve the problem of
corruption and improve living conditions. The political parties also suffer from public perception that the
parties are oligarchies with bureaucratized political machines, where grassroots members are
marginalized by money and violence.
To summarize, the Philippines enters the 21 st century with a decline in party politics, and the rise
of single-issue groups and social movements. These groups espouse such issues as anticorruption,
gender equality, nuclear power, animal rights, pollution and anti-imperialism.

Theories of Representation

Elections are said to constitute the heart of the political process, and to constitute democracy in
practice. When we describe election in this manner, we refer to the principle of representation, which
politicians serve as representatives of the people, and are thus invested with the corresponding
responsibility. The principle of representation is the method, by which we achieve the goal of
government by the people. But it is an open question on how the people can be properly represented in
practice. As a result, we now accept the principle of political equality, which has been defined as an
equal distribution of political power and influence. In layman’s terms, the principle of political equality
means one person is equivalent to one vote.
All models of representation proceed from two basic concepts. The first concept is popular
sovereignty; and the second two concepts, in Ball’s view are two main theories of representation:

 Liberal democratic theories of representation

This theory proceeds from the premise of individual rights, particularly the right to property. To
protect such rights, it is necessary to limit the power of government. To achieve this limitation, there
should be a universal suffrage and political equality. Another premise of this theory is that man is a
reasonable creature. He can identify not only his own personal interests, but also the wider public
interest.
Under this theory, the elected official is responsible to the voters, but he is not there delegate.
He exercises independent judgment. As a member of the representative assembly, the elected
official assumes the role of preventing encroachments by the executive branch on liberalities f the
individual. The principal allegiance is to the basic principles of political equality and popular
sovereignty.
In addition to upholding these two basic principles, the liberal democratic theory may assume
certain variations. One variation is the view that the elected official is an exact social mirror of the
electorate. Another variation is that the main goal of representation is discuss the various interest
represented, in order to arrive at a consensus on what is the common interest.

 Collective Theories of Representation

As developed by the European Socialists, these theories emphasize class conflict and the use of
the state by middle-class liberals to suppress the lower classes. The theory is that the representative
assembly represents, not individuals, but the majority class. From this premise, the theory proceeds
to the conclusion that popular sovereignty and majority rule should be emphasized.
Although the principle of political equality is now accepted, the theories of representation are
still debatable. Accordingly, Heywood has identified four models of representation as follows:

 Trusteeship Model
 The elected official is a trustee who assumes responsibility for the affairs of the public.
Under this model, once elected, the representative exercises independent judgment, based only
on his mature judgment and enlightened conscience. This model implies a certain degree of
elitism, because it implies that the masses do not know what their own best interests are.
The trusteeship model has been criticized in several ways. It is antidemocratic in that it
views the public as ignorant, poorly educated , or misguided. This model gives the power of
independent judgment to the representative, on the argument that the representative is
presumably better educated than the people who voted for him. However, there is no proof that
education necessarily results in correct moral judgment. Finally, there is real danger that when
politicians are given the power of independent judgment, they will use this power not to promote
altruism, but to promote their own self-interests.

 Delegate Model
The elected official is delegate of the electorate, from whom he receives guidance and
instructions. The delegate does not have the power of independent judgment, but merely acts as
a conduit for messages sent by the people. Under this model, professional politicians are less free
to pursue their interests. However, this model makes the elected representative narrw-minded. It
also fosters conflict among various local interests, instead of promoting national interest. Further,
this model limits the scope for leadership, by compelling politicians to act as mirrors or echoes of
their constituents. Few politicians would be able to provide vision to the constituency, since the
politicians would be busy trying to cultivate their constituents.

 Mandate Model
After the elections, a popular mandate is given, not to the elected official, but to his party.
Thus, this model promotes party unity and discipline. However, this model is based on the fallacy
that voters select parties on the grounds and policies and issues: the truth is that voter
preferences are based on variety factors. This mandate presumes that voters make their choices
on the basis of the platform of government (called party manifesto in other countries). This is not
necessarily correct, because a voter acts out of any number of motivations. Finally, under this
model, the party is bound by its manifesto, and loses freedom to adjust policies to changing
circumstances.

 Resemblance Model
The elected officials resemble or typify his constituency. This model has a number of
drawbacks. Representation is not always exclusive: for example, it is incorrect to claim that only a
worker can represent the working class. Another drawback of this model is that the elected official
represents not only the strengths of his constituency, but also its weaknesses. Finally this model
imposes severe limitations on electoral choice.

FUNCTIONS OF ELECTIONS
In a liberal democracy, the main function of election is to serve as a countervailing political
factor to armed force or violence. Elections are the way by which government defuses economic
difficulties, military demands, or internal political challenges. In these crisis situations, election serves as
formal channels of popular participation in government, and of the political opposition. From a wider
viewpoint, elections also serve to counter balance such politically relevant sources as wealth, education,
communications, and organization. In a Third World Country like the Philippines, where the state’s
military and administrative institutions are weak, elections defuse popular tension by seeming to give
priority to the needs and preferences of the citizens.
According to Heywood, elections have two main functions:
 Bottom-up – refers to the political recruitment, representation, establishing government and
influencing policy.
 Top-down – refers to building legitimacy, shaping public opinion, and strengthening elites.

Heywood has listed the functions of election as follows:

 Recruiting Politicians – Elections compel political parties to recruit candidates not necessarily on
the basis of their qualifications for office, but of electioneering skills, such as appearance,
personality and ability to communicate.
  Establishing the Government – This function is accented in parliamentary systems, where a
single party is usually acquires a parliamentary majority. Elections also bolster the power and
authority of government. It allows citizens to participate in the choice of leaders, thus
persuading them that the government is responsive to their needs.
 Providing Representation – Elections channel public demands to the government. Elections
socialize political activity, by allowing citizens to take part of political life. Citizen participation
becomes a matter of public policy, and not simply a matter of individual choice. People
participation preserves governmental stability, by making it unnecessary for the citizens to
resort to other, more disruptive forms of political activity.
 Influencing Policy – This function is discharged when the election campaign is dominated by a
single issue.
 Educating voters – This function discharged if the political party and the candidates are able to
provide information to the electorate, in a manner that stimulates public interest. However, on
many occasions instead of educating the voters, elections merely serve to mislead the voters.
This happens when the candidates and their parties provide incomplete and distorted
information. On such occasions, the goal of the candidates and parties is not to educate voters,
but to persuade them, through fair means or foul.
 Building legitimacy – Elections justify the democratic system, because they mobilize active
consent. Of course, this function is not discharged when the parties – usually the administration
party – engage in wholesale electoral fraud.
 Strengthening elites – Through elections, elites can manipulate and control the masses. The
elites usually gain an opportunity to regulate popular intervention, and the policy-making
process. Sometimes this is done through property requirements, weighted voting schemes,
cumbersome registration requirements, or – in the case of the Philippines – through massive
electoral fraud.

Electoral Systems
Just as there are various models of representation, there are also various electoral systems
practiced by states in the international community. Heywood enumerates the various electoral systems,
as follows.
 Simple – plurality system – It is used in the Philippines, United Kingdom, United States, Canada
and India. The winning candidate needs only to achieve a plurality of voters. This rule is also
known as first past the post.
 Second – Ballot System – It is traditionally used in France. If no candidate gains a first-ballot
majority, a second run – off ballot is held between the leading two candidates. This was widely
proposed in the Philippines after the 1992 presidential elections, when the candidate who led in
the first five days of canvassing eventually landed as a very close No. 2.
 Alternative– voting System – Used in the House of Representatives in Australia. There is a
preferential voting in a single member constituency. Voters rank the candidates in order of
preference. The winning candidate must gain 50 percent of all the votes cast. The votes are
counted according to the first preference. If no candidate reaches 50 percent, the bottom
candidate is eliminated, and his or her votes are redistributed according to the second (or
subsequent) preferences. This process continues until only one candidate has a majority.
 Limited – Votes System –Used in the House of Representatives in Japan. There are
multimember constituencies, and three to five winning candidates are proclaimed on a simple
plurality basis.
 Additional– Member System – It is used in Germany. Electors cast two votes: one for the
candidate in the constituency election, and the other for a party-list.
 Single-Transferable Vote System – It is used in Ireland. Candidates are elected if they achieve a
quota. This is the minimum number of votes needed to elect the stipulated number of
candidates, according to a certain formula known as the Droop Formula.
 Party-list System – It is used in Israel, Belgium, Luxembourg, Switzerland and Partly in the
Philippines. Electors vote for parties, not for candidates.

Voting Behavior
In a liberal democracy, elections are never unanimous. At best, elections serve to choose public
officials who gain majority vote. In some instances, a mere plurality vote is sufficient. Thus, it is difficult
to arrive at the true meaning of elections. According to Economic Theory of Democracy by Anthony
Downs, voting is an expression of self-intereston the part of voters. They select parties in the same way
that consumers select goods or services that are offered for sale. The problem with this theory is that
candidates are sold through voting, political campaigning, and propaganda. This being so, election
results do not reflect the interests of the mass of voters. Frequently, elections merely reflect the
resources and finances of the competing parties.
This economic theory of democracy is supported by the impossibility theorem by Kenneth Arrow.
This theorem applies to the alternative voting system, where there is crude, because it results in all or
nothing. An even bigger problem arises when no single candidate gains majority support. In view of the
problems raised by the economic theory of democracy, Heywood is probably correct when he states:
Perhaps the most significant function of elections is to set limits to arbitrary government by ensuring
that politicians who claim to speak for the public must ultimately be judged by public.
In the same way that it is difficult to say what elections mean, it is also difficult to predict voting
behavior. The problem has never been solved with the introduction of psychology – the scientific study
of voting behavior. There are many influences on voting behavior, particularly in short term. One of
these influences is the state economy, particularly in a Third World country like the Philippines, during
elections there is always a very strong link between the government’s popularity and economic
variables, such as unemployment, inflation and disposable income. Hence, Filipino administrations
always try to create a false sense of economic prosperity during campaign season by increasing
government spending, and particularly by creating employment opportunities. Other influences are
candidate personalities, party effectiveness, opinion polls, and the mass media. Accordingly, Heywood
lists several theories of voting:
 Party Identification Model – People presumably vote on the basis of their psychological
attachment to parties.
 Sociological Model – People presumably vote according to the economic and social positions of
the group to which they belong, whether it is based on class, gender, ethnicity, religion or
region.
 Rational Choice Model – People presumably vote on the basis of personal self-interest. In the
Philippines, this would involve such considerations as cash, jobs or other forms of political
patronage that the voters get from, or is promised by, a candidate.
 Dominant Ideology Model– Peoplepresumably vote as a result of ideological manipulation and
control exercised through education, the government and the mass media.

As previously noted, Downs theorizes that people will vote if the returns outweigh the costs; in
other words, if the stakes are important enough. Accordingly, the poor and uneducated are the least
likely to vote; while the middle-aged, better educated professionals are most likely to vote. The
difference in voting behavior between upper-class voters and working class nonvoters is based on the
belief by the former that their votes will make a difference. In terms of age, those who are less likely to
vote are the young voters, that is, those 18 to 25 years old. In term of gender, the difference in turnout
is negligible. In terms of residence, rural residence, rural residents are less likely to vote than city
dwellers.
Voting behavior in the Philippines is not easily as classified as in other countries. Usually the
social categories are:
 Class voting – Blue-collar workers tend to vote for parties that have close connections with the
labor unions. The middle and upper classes are more politically conservative.
 Regional Voting – Filipino voters have a pattern of voting for candidates who belong to their
own island groupings: Luzon, Visayas, or Mindanao. In addition, Filipinos exhibit a regional
voting pattern, such as those exhibited by the Ilocanos, Ilongos, Bicolanos, and Cebuanos.
 Religious Blocs – Because the Philippines is predominantly catholic, all elected presidents have
been Catholic. The only exception was a protestant general; but he was elected because he was
the official candidate of the administration party, and was therefore supported by the major
Catholic kingmakers of the administration.
 Age Groups – Young voters do not necessarily vote for radical parties. Instead, they vote for
what is most attractive to their generation, during the particular campaign season.
 Gender – Women are not necessarily more traditional and conservative than man.
 Ethnic Minorities – There is as yet no significant voting pattern among the voters in the
Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) and the Cordillera Administrative Region
(CAR).
  Urban Voting – The voting pattern in big cities is dictated by the presence of students, squatters,
and factory workers. Cities serve as concentrations of the working class votes from the factories
and squatters areas, and the student votes from the colleges and universities.

Electoral Fraud
No sooner the Philippines gained independence, than the presidential candidates began to
cheat massively against each other. It is said that in the Philippines presidential elections, the loser
always cried fraud. In all likelihood, all the losers were correct, for Philippine elections have been
marked by increasing degrees and varieties of electoral fraud. At the onset of the 21 st century, electoral
fraud, like corruption, is one of the biggest problems of the country.
In the first few decades of the Republic, electoral fraud took the form of vote-buying and
violence against political opponents, often resulting in killings. In the last few decades before the turn of
the century, electoral fraud took the form of forgery – both of ballots, and the certificate of canvass
which are prepared at the municipal and provincial levels. This remains the current methodology of
electoral fraud. Forgery of ballots is usually done in printing fake ballots, filling them up, and using them
to replace genuine ballots in a ballot box. This is also known as ballot stuffing. Sometimes, if ballot
stuffing is not feasible, the political operatives simply destroy all the genuine ballots inside the ballot
box, for example, by filling the box with water.
Forgery of the certificate of canvass – at both the municipal and provincial levels – is done, for
example, by exchanging the total recorded votes among candidates. This means that the votes of the
winner are exchanged for the votes of the loser. This is done very crudely, by the expedient of using a
liquid eraser. Another example of this kind of forgery is by changing the first digit of the total recorded
votes for the candidate. Hence, if a candidate receives 500, 000 votes, all that is need is to change the
digit to 5 with the digit 1, which results in reducing the candidate’s number of votes by 400, 000. All this
violations of forgery are called in Filipino Operation Dagdag-Bawas.

Reference:
Miriam Defensor Santiago, Politics and Governance