NO LIMITATIONS: Should commissioned polls be outlawed

By Attorney Ted Lagautan ESQ

Polls commissioned (read paid for) by politicians are about as credible as a straight - jacketed wacko who believes in purple unicorns. Politicians commission polls on the theory that if the results make them look good – the public’s sheep mentality kicks in. It’s an effective bandwagon effect tactic because there’s a lot of sheep out there.

In commissioned political surveys, the objective is to make the candidate look good. That’s why unfavorable survey results for commissioning politicians are as unlikely as snow in the Sahara. Pollsters can ensure a predetermined foreseeable result by simply custom designing the questions and selectively picking a target group of respondents to accomplish their purpose. Say – I ask 1200 Filipinos from General Santos: “Would you rather watch a Pacquiao fight or watch boring grandstanding senators on TV?” The answers are easily predictable. See? Thomas Mann of the highly respected independent Brookings Institute think tank: “When a group with an agenda releases a poll, you should not take it seriously. There’s ample opportunity in the design of questions to provide findings that are consistent with a group’s general orientation.”

Pollsters have perfected the art and science of manipulating outcomes. “Tell us what you want – we’ll deliver.” says one pollster. Yes they can - if the price is right.

Buying desired poll results is not quite as easy as buying a loaf of bread. In third world countries, there are few established polling companies. Politicos compete to get their services. The guy with the fat wallet usually wins.

A candidate commissioned survey is simply a more sophisticated form of marketing gimmickry - a con game on the public if you will. One pollster demystifies it: “We provide something better than advertising agencies - very effective advertising that does not look like advertising.”

But polling companies can also provide valuable data. They often engage in legitimate objective surveys which are commissioned or paid for – but where no hidden agendas are involved. For example, gov’t agencies might commission them to do demographic studies or to determine the incidence of certain diseases in particular areas. These objective surveys add to pollsters’ credibility and respectability. The more respectable, the higher price they command for politically instigated commissioned surveys.

Commissioning politicians should also not be faulted. Since polling companies are not regulated and commissioned polls are legal – they simply utilize this open opportunity. Given that commissioned polls or surveys mislead the public – should they be outlawed?
Here’s my take on the issue.

I don’t think commissioned polls should be outlawed. If conducted honestly with no cloaked agendas and the true purpose is fact finding – they can provide valuable data. Outlawing speech – whether written or oral – tends to create a prior restraint or inhibition on other kinds of constitutionally protected speech. Polls are a form of speech. In a free society, the expression and competition for all kinds of ideas should be given full encouragement and free rein so that the best ideas emerge to be absorbed by the citizenry - increasing the probability of implementation. Good for all.

However certain rules should be instituted - so that the use of commissioned surveys are not abused and used to mislead the citizenry. These rules relate to methodology, to changing realities and the interpretation of results. Aside from the results, polling companies should provide additional information as to: 1. Who commissioned or paid for the survey? 2. Which persons did the poll? 3. How they went about it? 4. What questions were asked, and in what order? 5. How large was the sample? (the larger, the more accurate) 6. How random was the sample? 7. When was the date of the sampling? 8. Were the questions conducted on the phone, the internet, by mail or in person?

This information should be made available online.

Polling companies have public responsibilities and ethical standards should apply. They should also advise the public that today’s voting preferences do not necessarily predict the future. They only reflect the respondents’ minds on the polling date. Preferences change. While these rules are not yet in place and enforceable – the best guideline for voters regarding commissioned surveys is to view these with skepticism. Instead, carefully study the issues and the candidates’ qualifications to be a responsible voter.

Two recent Philippine presidential polls were commissioned by the second leading candidate who was down by over 30 points. His commissioned poll results showed the gap closed to 13 points and then to only 8 points. Hmm….really?

Instead of spending millions to counter said candidates’ poll presentations – I respectfully suggest to the other poll-challenged candidates to simply reprint this article. Distribute as many as possible. It will inform and educate voters – help them to choose good leaders. You have my permission to do so – without charge. It’s a more effective counter strategy than costly commissioned polls. Donate some of your savings to hungry children maybe. Thanks.

----------o----------

The California State Bar officially certifies Ted Laguatan as an expert/specialist lawyer. He does immigration law, personal injury, complex litigation, medical malpractice and other cases. A magazine for lawyers rates him as being among the top 5 percent best lawyers in America. For communications: 455 Hickey Blvd., Ste.516, Daly City, CA 94015, Tel. (650) 991-1154, Fax (650)991-1186, 101 California St. Ste. 2450, SF, CA 94111 E-mail: laguatanlaw@gmail.com

FROM THE CAPITOL: Safety on the Streets

By Senator Leland Yee

In high school science classrooms, students are taught that data becomes fact only when it can be tested. Experiments are set up with control groups and variables, and through testing and retesting, one ends up with valid and reliable information.

Unfortunately, when it comes to public policy, such experiments are often unfeasible. In a state of 38 million people, there are so many variables associated with any piece of legislation that it is rare that we get a neat determination of how laws affect human behavior. However, in January of 2009, one such experiment began on San Francisco’s 19th and Van Ness Avenues, and now it is up to us to learn from it. In a city with an already abnormally high rate of pedestrian traffic accidents, 19th Avenue was one of the most dangerous streets, with nearly 600 pedestrian collisions taking place from 2003 to 2007, resulting in 10 deaths and hundreds of injuries.

Through the years, we have successfully changed the speed limit on 19th Avenue from 35 to 30 mph, installed pedestrian countdown signals at traffic lights, improved signage, and added bulb-outs to shorten the distance for pedestrians at several crosswalks. Despite all these changes, we continued to have an unacceptably high fatality rate on 19th Avenue.

In 2008, after five years of hard work, we were finally able to get a double-fine zone on 19th Avenue when Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed SB 1419 — a bill I crafted with the help of several San Francisco community members. The combination of the fines and the improvements resulted in a substantial drop in traffic accidents along 19th Avenue, and there was not a single pedestrian death in 2009 — a result of which all San Franciscans can be proud.

As part of the compromise to get the double-fine zone on 19th Avenue approved, the Senate Transportation Committee insisted that we also include a double-fine zone on Van Ness Avenue, another dangerous corridor in our city. However, thus far, the improvements that have been made on 19th Avenue have failed to materialize on Van Ness Avenue, and as a result we have not seen a similar statistical change.

The fine increase cannot be used as a magic bullet, but rather as a piece of a larger strategy to improve traffic safety. It is my hope that the successes we have had on 19th Avenue can be repeated on Van Ness, and my expectations are that we would then see similar progress.

Good public policy is never made in a vacuum. It is carefully crafted with input from the community that will be affected by it, and when it fails to meet the needs of that community it should be retooled until it does. While it may be too early to say anything with absolute certainty regarding this law, what we have seen thus far is encouraging and that increased fines are an important piece of the puzzle needed to help save lives.

STREET TALK: Consumisyon on elections

By Greg Macabenta

If you think that the Commission on Elections has been purged of multi-million dollar hamburjers and million-vote phone pals, look again. This constitutional body is still infested with characters who cannot tell right from wrong.

When Congress passed the Dual Citizenship Law, Republic Act 9225, many of us who had become naturalized citizens of foreign countries welcomed the opportunity to reclaim our Philippine citizenship. The day the law became operative, I was with the first batch that crowded into the Philippine Consulate in San Francisco to become a Filipino citizens again.

At last, we would have an opportunity to exercise the right of suffrage, to participate in the choice of the leaders of the land of our birth, to contribute to its emergence from poverty not simply with our money remittances but also with our skills and other assets.

But we celebrated too soon. Comelec Chairman Benjamin Abalos – the Hamburjer Man, star of the NBN/ZTE multi-million dollar scandal – ruled that dual citizens could not vote in the 2004 elections. Led by Loida Nicolas-Lewis, then chair of the National Federation of Filipino American Associations (NaFFAA), several of us appealed to the Supreme Court to nullify the ruling.

On August 4, 2006, the high court ruled in our favor, decreeing that the Dual Citizenship Law was meant to “to “enfranchise as much as possible all overseas Filipinos.” Unfortunately, the decision came too late for us to vote in the Garcified presidential contest, where a million votes were added on to an Arroyo victory, but it allowed us to help bring in a new batch of senators – and kick out a lot of undesirable ones - in the 2007 polls.

Now comes the 2010 presidential elections, a monumental event in the continuing struggle of the Philippines to extricate itself from a fate of corruption, incompetence, crime and poverty. Like the invigorated American electorate who voted in large numbers in the last US presidential elections in their desire for “change they could believe in,” overseas Filipinos have become motivated to actively participate in the selection of the new Philippine president to ensure that all vestiges of the graft-ridden administration of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo are ejected and changed. Since the passage of the Dual Citizenship and the Overseas Absentee Voting Laws, the response of overseas Filipinos, particularly those in the US, had been embarrassing, to say the least. We had lobbied long and hard to have both laws passed by Congress, but when they were finally signed into law, only a handful of otherwise qualified Filipino voters took the trouble to register, and fewer still bothered to vote.

A January 19 story filed by GMA News gave these dismal numbers: “A total of 589,830 overseas Filipinos registered for the 2010 elections. According to the poll body’s statistics, 224,884 new voters were added to the list of 364,946 active voters from the past two elections. In addition to the land-based Filipinos, a total of 21,097 seafarers will also be allowed to vote in the 2010 elections.

“Since the OAV was signed into law in 2003, figures have not been encouraging. In the 2004 national elections, only 360,000 of the more than four million qualified overseas Filipinos had registered. Of this figure, only 65 percent or 233,092 actually voted.

“In the 2007 midterm elections, at least 145,000 more overseas Filipinos registered to vote but only 81,732 cast their ballots. Data from the Comelec indicated that the countries with the most number of overseas Filipino voters are Saudi Arabia with 111,549; Hong Kong, 95,355; and the United States of America, 40,430.

“In terms of geographic regions, the Middle East and African nations have the most number of overseas voters, with a total of 225,148. The Asia Pacific, meanwhile, has 215,548; Europe, 61,294; and North and Latin America, 66,743.”

Among the reasons for the poor response are provisions in the law that make it difficult to register and vote. But what has made a bad situation worse is the fact that the Comelec has not really done enough to encourage voter registration. In fact, it has actively discouraged registration in the forthcoming elections by setting the deadline a full month earlier, August 31 instead of the end of September.

In a case filed before the Supreme Court by Raymond Palatino on behalf of Philippine voters, the high court directed the Comelec to extend the registration period by 69 days. Encouraged by this, a FilAm from Boston, Maritess Salientes Bloom, filed a petition with the Comelec in Manila asking for an extension of 28 days for overseas voters. This effort was supported by NaFFAA and actively pursued by Loida Nicolas-Lewis and Rodel Rodis.

For some reason that defies logic, another overseas group, the Global Filipino Nation, headed by Vic Barrios, filed its own petition for extension but only asked for two extra days!

To further complicate matters, a private conversation between Lewis and a Comelec official, to the effect that the Bloom petition had been “approved,” was prematurely announced as a fait accompli. The celebration was cut short when the Comelec subsequently announced that the petition had, in fact, been denied.

As in the past, the leaders of NaFFAA are preparing to appeal this adverse decision to the Supreme Court. According to Rodis, the rationale given by the Comelec for denying the Bloom petition do not hold water. The Comelec avers that giving an extension of 28 days would upset the work schedule of the poll body, require more personnel and resources and, in effect, jeopardize the conduct of the elections. Rodis scoffs at this.

According to Rodis, “The Comelec rejected our petition because to grant it ‘would wreak havoc to the Commission's over-all preparations for the 10 May 2010 National and Local Elections. Petitioner must bear in mind that to set an additional registration period now would have a rippling effect to our Commission's schedules, which are already tight as it is.’
“First of all, for the information of the Comelec, overseas voters do not vote in ‘Local Elections’ just in case the Comelec was not aware of that. How would extending the registration period to overseas voters ‘wreak havoc’? The work would be done by the local consular officials who still have the voters registration machines. What kind of ‘rippling’ effect would it have? The Comelec made the same arguments against the Palatino petition and yet none of the ‘rippling effects’ it warned against materialized. Comelec would not need to hire any new workers to register the overseas voters.”

Added Rodis: “The Comelec's decision actually presents us with the opportunity to put the Comelec on trial for its gross incompetence and for completely ignoring the needs and interests of the overseas absentee voters.”

We can only hope for the best. The Supreme Court could rule in favor of overseas Pinoys – but past experience warns us that the decision could be made AFTER the 2010 elections. In such a case, the Commission on Elections would have succeeded in frustration our efforts to participate in the choice of the new president. It should be renamed, Consumisyon on Elections.
But we’re not entirely helpless. Those who have already registered should vote. And those who haven’t and can’t register should actively campaign for honest and competent candidates and direct their friends and families in the Philippines to do likewise.

Otherwise, heaven help the Philippines. We might yet end up with a new president named Money Villarroyo.

(gregmacabenta@hotmail.com)