Voting Behavior of Teachers

Voting Behavior of Teachers

Feliece I. Yeban, Benjamin Domingcil, Jr. Jose Ocampo, and Minda Valencia

(Researcher-‐Authors)

Lydia Maravilla Aggarao, Florisa Simeon, Evangeline Martin, Remedios Ong,

Nelson Ines, Enrico Garcia, Diony Rivas, and Lara Pantig (Field Researchers)

Introduction

An election is a formal decision-‐making process by which a population chooses

individuals to hold public offices. As a democratic country, the Philippines has the

framework and capacity to conduct this political exercise. A case in point is the recent

2013 Philippine midterm election which seat 12 senators, 229 members of the House of

Representatives, and thousands of local officials, who enter office with legitimacy and

political capital.

Election results have shown that many of the winners belong to “Team PNoy,” or the

team of incumbent President Benigno S. Aquino. This means that President Aquino

continues to have a hand on the political and economic reform agenda as he enters the

second half of his term, which ends in 2016. The midterm election has undeniably

indicated the popularity of the reformist President, who also assumed office with an

unprecedented mandate from the electorate.

The most provoking questions about an election are not pertaining to who won but why

people voted the way they did or what the implications of the results are. The most

extensive study ever conducted on the Filipino voting behavior was conducted by the

Institute for Political Reform in 1995 and updated in 2003. The research found four

factors that determine how the Filipino voter chooses his candidates namely (1)

candidate’s popularity and public image, (2) endorsement of traditional networks and

organizations, (3) characteristics that can benefit the voter, and (4) party program.

The IPER study though comprehensive did not look into variations in the voting behavior

of different sectors. The teacher sector particularly, is an interesting sector to look at.

Apart from directly managing the polling precincts, teachers, next to parents, are agents

of political socialization. They influence the political knowledge and attitudes of

students. Empirical findings from different fields show that primary school pupils are

already politically, morally and democratically involved (2006). The power of teachers

and educators to shape students’ political attitude and consciousness makes an

investigation of the teachers’ voting behavior an interesting research topic. Their voting

behavior reveals a lot about their civic and political consciousness which will inevitably

have an impact on their students. How do our teachers vote? Is their vote similar to how

the majority vote? The election in May 2013 was used as venue to seek answers to such

questions. Hopefully, insights drawn from the study can be used to improve the civic

and political education of teachers.

This study aimed to examine the voting behavior of teachers in the 2013 midterm

election. It attempted both to describe and analyze the various elements that

determine and influence the teachers’ decision to vote for certain candidates, through

the use of quantitative and qualitative research techniques. A survey questionnaire was

administered to a sample population or 20 percent of the total number of graduate

students and 3rd and 4th year undergraduate students of the Philippine Normal

University and its four other campuses. The survey was conducted among the sample

population. They were requested to fill out questionnaires to generate a general

understanding of voting behavior. The responses were quantified using the statistical

packages of the social sciences.

To validate the results of the survey and to gain deeper understanding of voters’

behavior, the researchers utilized qualitative techniques such as interview, and several

focus group discussions. These were also administered to a selected group of students

in all the PNU campuses. These techniques were used to ensure a “high quality and

richer data” which may not be captured and included in the survey.

An overview of Filipino “relationship politics”

Philippine politics is widely known to be highly personalistic, i.e., Filipinos vote based on

the personal characteristics of candidates and lacking in genuine party politics.

Politicians change party allegiance depending on which “party” or alliance is in power.

Parties may change their name to accommodate alliances of personalities. What it has is

a complicated network of layers upon layers of social relationships based on affinity or

ritual. Relationships could be based on blood, affinity, rituals, fraternities, social

network, religious affiliation, or even admiration for a sports or tv/movie personality.

Party programs are not very well differentiated except perhaps for progressive or

perceived left-‐leaning organizations which usually participate in the party list elections.

The patron client relations framework is the dominant model used in understanding

Philippine electoral politics. In this view, political leaders (the patron) who usually

belong to the wealthier strata of society acquire power by positioning themselves as

providers and even peddlers of material and other benefits to the poorer sectors (the

client). In return, the client assures the patron of his vote. This relationship is borne out

of the kinship system which is based on affinity and ritual. One’s kinship network is

one’s social capital that facilitates or inhibits one’s social mobility. An individual’s ability

to connect to the “network” or “sakop” of the elite paves the way for political and

economic opportunities. The elite take it upon themselves to distribute to their “sakop”

the “wealth” of the network. The members of the network support the network by

contributing to the network’s leader/s their loyalty and support. This “sakop” mentality

aptly explains political family feud, the need for money during elections to “support” the

“hoard” working at the “grassroots”. This “sakop” relationship creates parochial

expectations and obligations.

According to the IPER study, this view of Philippine politics is gradually being seen as

inadequate to fully explain the evolving behavior of the Filipino electorate. The clan

politics that was dominant during the early years of the Republic until the end of the

Marcos era in 1986 shares center stage with “celebrity politics” that saw television and

movie personalities getting elected to office. This trend however, dipped after the

ouster of President Joseph Estrada, a very popular former movie actor turned politician,

in 2001 due to accusations of corruption and bad governance. The 2007 elections results

showed the tempering of politics based on popularity with the losses at the polls of big

named personalities. An extensive study of the 2010 and 2013 results is yet to be done.

It can be surmised, however that the Filipino voting behavior is evolving which confirms

the major concerns raised by researchers characterizing voting research – that voting

patterns change over time.

Lessons From Cognitive Science

Findings in voting research seem to point that people are driven in the voting booth by

their feelings which reflect the extent to which their interests and values are

represented (Westen, 2010). Accordingly, voters have four critical questions in mind

that shape their choice of candidates. One, who among the candidates share the values

that matter to the voter. Two, who among the candidates can be trusted. Three, who

among the candidates have the personal qualities of integrity, leadership, and

competence. And four, what is their stand on the issues that matter to the voter.

Another set of findings that is worth noting Is the view that citizens often rely on

cognitive heuristics (or shortcuts) to guide their political decisions (e.g., Sniderman,

Brody, & Tetlock, 1991). Popkin (1991) uses the term “low-‐information rationality,” to

refer to the citizens’ use of “information shortcuts and rules of thumbs” (p. 7). What this

means is, voters do not usually have access and cannot always process the complete set

of information and knowledge about the candidates and the socio-‐political context

required to make the most “objective and informed choice”. They will rely on their gut

or “pakiramdam” depending on how the candidates “appear” to them. Scientists have

discovered “mirror neurons” that provide explanation to the phenomenon of enabling

us to “sense” if people talking to us are sincere or not. The mirror neuron systems allow

us to experience other people’s intentions (Western, 2010). The media and the

campaign strategy that “package” the candidates will inevitably influence the

“information” received by the voters about the candidates. Hayes et al (2009), found that

television has personalized‖ voting behavior by encouraging citizens to vote on the basis of

candidates’ image and personality. The candidates who are able to weave a narrative of

themselves that appeal to both the minds and hearts of the voters will win. The story

should be compelling and something that voters can identify with and feel for. Westen

(2010) argues that “elections are won and lost not primarily on issues but on the values

and emotions of the electorate”.

The Teachers’ “Pet”

Table 1 shows who did the teachers vote for in the May 2013 Congressional elections:

Elected Senators Teachers' Choice 1.Grace Poe 1.Francis Chiz Escudero 52% 2. Loren Legarda 2. Grace Poe 46% 3.Francis Chiz Escudero 3. Edgardo Sonny Angara 44% 4. Allan Peter Cayetano 4. Benigno Bam Aquino 39% 5. Nancy Binay 5. Ed Hagedorn 37% 6.Edgardo Sonny Angara 6. Dick Gordon 37% 7. Benigno Bam Aquino 7. Allan Peter Cayetano 36% 8. Koko Pimentel 8. Loren Legarda 33% 9. Antonio Trillanes 9. Risa Hontiveros 31% 10. Cynthia Villar 10. Antonio Trillanes 30% 11. JV Ejercito 11. Koko Pimentel 27% 12. Gregorio Honasan 12. Cynthia Villar 22%

It is noteworthy, however, that while majority of those favored by the respondents won,

there were three (3) senatorial candidates voted by the respondents who lost in their

senatorial bid. These were Ed Hagedorn, Dick Gordon, and Risa Hontiveros. Two (2) of

the losing candidates were from the opposition parties and one (1) was from Team

Pinoy, the incumbent President’s team. This suggests that while the respondents

generally favored the line up of the administration, they also chose other senatorial

candidates for various reasons. The succeeding sections will tackle the issue. The

qualitative data gathered from the focus group discussion and interviews provided the

insights that explain this phenomenon. The questionnaire included questions about

why they voted for each of the candidates of their choice. Below are the salient

features of the responses:

It can also be gleaned from the list that there were four (4) women senators who were

chosen by the respondents. All of them won in the national election except one (1)

candidate.

Reasons for Choice of Senatorial Candidates

This section discusses the reasons for the respondents’ choice of senatorial candidates.

They were asked to explain what made them vote for each of their chosen candidates.

1. Senator Francis “Chiz” Escudero

Senator Chiz Escudero was the most favored senatorial candidate among the

respondents. Almost all the respondents were of the opinion that he won because of

his credibility and integrity as a senator. His impeccable track record as a lawmaker has

proven that he could indeed serve the country. They agreed that Escudero was a

competent and seasoned legislator.

The respondents also answered that they voted for Escudero because of his advocacy

and programs on education as well as his stand against political dynasty. They all agreed

that Escudero was incorruptible and that the Senate still needed him.

A lot of respondents also thought that Escudero garnered the highest votes in the

senatorial election because of his physical and social traits. Escudero had an edge over

the other candidates because he was seen as charismatic, good looking and young. He

was also described as very articulate, intelligent, smart, and witty. As an aside, his

family background was a contributing factor for his success. Almost all the respondents

said that these traits were bolstered with his association with Heart Evangelista, a young

actress, and contributed to his immense popularity and winnability.

(The foregoing shows that while Escudero comes from a political family, a trait which is

taken with disdain by the Filipino electorate, the respondents still look for certain

qualities in a candidate. In this case, the voters thought that being credible, young,

intelligent, and good looking would be an asset as a legislator. In addition, the advocacy

of the candidate matters among the voters.)

2. Senator Grace Poe

Majority of the respondents said that they voted for Senator Grace Poe because of her

good track record as chairperson of the Movie and Television Review and Classification

Board (MTRCB). She was believed to be a woman of credibility and integrity.

Others perceived her to be humble, intelligent, good natured, respectful, and smart. She

was seen as genuinely concerned with the poor sector of society. There were also those

who were impressed with her educational attainment.

These traits were believed to have come from her good family background. The

respondents agreed that since Poe comes from a reputable family, she is also

trustworthy. As the daughter of the late Fernando Poe, Jr. (FPJ), a former actor and a

former presidential candidate, they believed that she can continue her father’s legacy

and advocacy.

Most of the respondents also replied that they chose Poe because of the popularity of

her family, especially her father. Some even revealed that they voted for her out of

sympathy to her father’s untimely demise because he lost in the 2004 presidential

election. The latter was allegedly cheated in the said election.

Poe’s success could also be attributed to her political media campaigns. Her frequent

exposure in the media as “Anak ni FPJ” had proven to be effective in capturing the

voters’ interests.

Almost all the respondents also agreed that since Poe is a new face, with a good and

new platform, she can contribute to a clean and transparent form of government. Poe

was perceived to show potential as a good leader and a senator.

(This goes to show that voters are looking for alternative leaders. That is, leaders who

are not the usual traditional politicians (trapos), but young leaders (new and fresh faces)

who have the competence and integrity to serve the people. Much emphasis is also

given to the advocacy of the candidate. Not to be discounted is the “sentimental and

sympathy” factors that influenced the voters’ decision.)

3. Senator Edgardo Sonny Angara

When asked why they voted for Senator Edgardo Sonny Angara, almost all the

respondents answered that they were impressed with Angara’s credibility, track record,

and good performance as a legislator. While in Congress, he authored and helped in

passing into law the Magna Carta of Women.

All the respondents also agreed that they voted for Angara because of his platform and

advocacy on education. They cited Angara’s advocacy on educational reforms and

support for teachers’ rights. As teachers, they said that they would certainly benefit

from Angara’s platform.

In addition, most respondents mentioned about his good family background. Since his

father did a good job in the Senate, he could also influence the younger Angara to do

the same. As an aside, some observed that there was never a negative feedback about

him.

Majority also cited other factors why they voted for Angara. He was perceived as

competent, smart, honest, highly educated, responsible, and trustworthy. In addition,

they mentioned the need for a new face like Angara in the Senate.

There were respondents who revealed that they voted for Angara because of

endorsements. Some said that Angara was endorsed by equally popular and good

looking young stars such as Coco Martin and Sarah Geronimo. While some revealed

that they chose him because of the endorsement of the head of their church, others

mentioned that their parent influenced them to vote for him.

(The foregoing shows the benefit factor as an essential factor that informed the voters’

decision. Angara had a solid voters’ base, the teachers, because of his advocacy on

education. This is bolstered by his educational and family background, physical

characteristics and endorsement of popular figures and traditional networks.)

4. Senator Benigno Bam Aquino

All the respondents cited that they chose Senator Benigno Bam Aquino because of his

relationship with the President of the Philippines. Having come from a family of

politicians with credible and good reputation had influenced the respondents to vote for

him. They said that the track record of the Aquinos in serving the country had been

tested though time and another Aquino in the government would be favorable for the

country.

Majority of the respondents also mentioned that his platforms would definitely benefit

the youth. They specifically cited his advocacy on education and entrepreneurship for

the young people.

Moreover, the young Aquino was himself perceived as an achiever. He had a good track

record as a youth ambassador and very knowledgeable about business and finance. In

addition, they voted for him because he was once an awardee as Ten Outstanding

Young Men (TOYM) of the Philippines.

While Aquino is still young, this trait was perceived by the respondents as an advantage

over other candidates. They said that the Senate needed a new blood and a new face so

as to infuse a breath of fresh and new ideas in the institution. They believed that in spite

of his age, Aquino seemed passionate to help realize the “tuwid na daan” (straight path)

plans of the President. Aquino was perceived as clean, honest, incorruptible, intelligent,

and trustworthy. Almost all the respondents also said that Aquino had all the potential

to be a political leader.

(The foregoing implies that voters are indeed on the look out for new look in politics.,

i.e., young but competent and intelligent leaders/politicians, with no nonsense

advocacy. Equally important is the political lineage and the political machinery)

5. Mr. Ed Hagedorn

Mr. Hagedorn was one of the senatorial candidates who was voted by the respondents

but unfortunately lost in the election. When the teachers were asked why they voted

for him, they said that his impressive track record as mayor of Puerto Princesa City in

Palawan left an indelible mark on them. Under his leadership, Palawan became a

favorite tourist destination. It was also during his term, according to the respondents,

that the Underground River in Palawan was chosen as one of the Seven Wonders of the

World. The respondents agreed that his track record, credibility, and experience as a

local chief executive would be useful should he assume a national post.

Moreso, most of the respondents answered that they favored Hagedorn because of his

advocacy on the environment. They also mentioned of Hagedorn’s program to promote

tourism.

The respondents argued that the Senate needed a new face and a new name. For them,

Hagedorn was the man because of his dedication to his work and intelligence. They

believed that Hagedorn had all the potential of being a good leader and that his feat in

Palawan could be duplicated in the Senate.

Be that as it may, Hagedorn did not make it in the mid-‐term election. When asked

about the possible reasons for his failed bid in Senate, the respondents said that he was

not that popular. He might be well known in his province but not in the entire country.

Others were of the opinion that since he ran as an independent candidate, he had no

political party to support him. With no political machinery to back him up, some

respondents observed that Hagedorn did not have enough resources such as media

exposure, advertisements, posters, flyers and other election materials during the

campaign.

(The foregoing indicates that there are cases when competence, credibility and

dedication are not enough to win in a national election. As a new player in a national

election, the importance of a political party and its machinery and resources cannot be

over emphasized. The latter is important to ensure the candidate’s reach of influence

especially in far flung areas of the country.)

6. Mr. Dick Gordon

Mr. Gordon was voted by the respondents because of his track record and credibility as

a (public) servant leader. According to them, in all the posts (e.g., as mayor or as chair,

among others) that Gordon had assumed, he proved to be very competent, dedicated,

responsible, and trustworthy. Sometimes called as “the action man” or “walk the talk

man”, Gordon was known to get things done excellently. They thought highly of Gordon

as having the political will and integrity to provide good services to the people.

With or without a government position, the respondents mentioned that Gordon was

always ready to extend help to those in need. He was also very visible and always the

first person to respond during calamities.

The respondents also said that they voted for Gordon because of his notable advocacy

on health, tourism, environment and women’s rights. Should he win in the election, his

programs would certainly help the Filipino people.

Others also mentioned that they favored Gordon over other candidates not only

because he was service and action oriented, but because of his intelligence and strong

personality. These sterling qualities had impressed even the elderly voters. Some

respondents revealed that they voted for Gordon because their grandparents asked

them to do so.

While Gordon was popular among the respondents, Gordon did not muster enough

votes from the electorate to get a seat in the Senate. He landed number 13 in the

election, losing only by a few thousand votes to be in the magic 12. When asked about

the reasons for losing in the election, the respondents said that it might be due to the

lack of extensive political machinery.

Others cited that some people might think that even if he was popular, his

accomplishments were not really impressive. Some answered that he lacked

advertisements and election posters and similar materials during the campaign. Hence,

Filipinos in some parts of the country might not even know that he was running as

senator. Related to this, some respondents observed that his campaign advertisement

was not good and even found it “funny”. Media’s depiction of his activities did not

appeal to the electorate.

There were also respondents who mentioned about Gordon being an American boy or

Amboy. As such, his allegiance to the country was questionable.

Some respondents answered that Gordon had a poor political strategy. He was not able

to get the support from a relative who also run as senator. Had he gotten the support

and that it was only him who ran for Senate, he would have garnered the winning votes.

7. Senator Allan Peter Cayetano

Sen. Allan Peter Cayetano was the eighth choice of the respondents. They said that they

voted for him because of his credibility, reliability and truthfulness. Many could easily

recall him as an opposition to former President Gloria Arroyo. They regard him as an

ideal leader who believes that transparency should prevail in the government. Among

those who won as senators, the respondents perceive him as the most active which also

indicates his good performance in government office.

He also comes from a political family but he is more associated with being relatively

young and a “fresh face”. His short stint in the Senate has a lot of impact because he

was involved in high profile issues.

8. Senator Loren Legards

The ninth choice of the respondents is Loren Legarda. She enjoys the trust of

respondents as they said that she is honest perhaps due to her reputation as a

newscaster. People look to newscasters as reputable and responsible in reporting

factual and accurate information on air. Her long years in the senate give respondents

an idea that she is very much tested when it comes to public service. She is identified

with environmental issues which seem to be an issue teachers feel very strongly about.

9. Ms. Risa Hontiveros

This candidate did not make it to the Magic 12 in the senate despite being the only

candidate who had identified her campaign with women issues. The women’s vote is

still not a fully developed bloc among the Filipino electorate. Hontiveros is revered by

the respondents as a person who has deep sense for advocacy. A known street

parliamentarian, Risa Hontiveros, is the 9th choice of participant-‐teachers. Though

unsuccessful during the recent mid-‐term elections, she earned the highest confidence of

teachers in relation to advocacy. Her activities revolve around anti-‐corruption, women

empowerment, and protection of human rights programs. She likewise attracted

considerable attention of teachers despite a beginner in the senatorial race. She is

perceived as a credible leader.

Her loss is attributed by teachers to her lack of machinery and her lack of popularity

among the “masa”.

10. Senator Antonio Trillanes

Sen. Antonio Trillanes is among the lead choices of teachers in the senate. He is

perceived as an emerging picture of idealism representing the underestimated sector of

the military. He figured in the ‘Oakwood Mutiny” that led to his incarceration. While

taking his time in jail he remained a vocal critique of former President Arroyo. This

eventually catapulted him to formally join the political arena. Teachers view Trillanes as

a better alternative to Honasan whose reputation and charisma that helped catapult

him to fame in 1986 seem to be in decline. He is perceived as a serious public servant,

clean, and is on a mission to combat corruption.

11. Sen. Aquilino “Koko” Pimentel

Sen. Koko Pimentel emerged as the 10th option of the respondents to serve in the

senate. The respondents’ perception about his credibility without a doubt can be

associated to his father who has served the country as an ally and cabinet secretary of

the late President Corazon Aquino. Besides, his father also served as a long time

lawmaker in the senate. His famous punch line as heir-‐apparent to his father being a

victim of “dagdag-‐bawas” on his first attempt in the senatorial elections could have

contributed to his successful comeback to get elected as a senator. Other than that, the

resignation of Senator Zubiri, whom he accused as beneficiary of election fraud created

more color and noise to Koko Pimentel’s name.

12. Senator Cynthia Villar

Another candidate whom teachers trust is Cynthia Villar. She is perceived to have good

track record not only in politics but even in business. Her realty industry involvement

and membership in congress could be behind her popularity. With so much idealism,

teachers chose her neither because she is the wife of Senator Manny Villar nor any

familial reason. Her platform concerning employment and livelihood for the poor has

captured teachers’ support.

It is interesting to note that teachers did not vote for three winning candidates, Nancy

Binay, Gringo Honasan, and JV Ejercito. Teachers did not view the candidates as lacking

in any one of the following factors namely competence, good reputation, and affiliation

with good political families or personalities.

Mr. Teddy Casino was among the top 15 choices of the respondents. It can be surmised

that there are groups among the teacher sector that are gradually embracing

progressive politics and have high regard for candidates who have profound principles

for the poor. His advocacy against corruption, human rights violation, and poverty left

teachers with tremendous easy recall of the name Teddy Casino. It is interesting to note

however, that teachers overwhelmingly voted for the Alliance of Concerned Teachers

(ACT) as their party list representative but this was not translated into a vote for Casino

who is associated with ACT. It can be surmised that teachers voted for the most

dominant teachers’ group but were not yet willing to vote to the senate someone who is

a known militant personality associated with the “left politics”.

Teachers’ Choice of Party List Table 2 shows the party list that teachers voted to represent them in Congress:

Party List frequency Percent Valid Percent

ACT 172 30.82% 51.19% A Teacher 33 5.91% 9.82% CIBAC 18 3.23% 5.36% BUHAY 16 2.87% 4.76% ATING GURO 12 2.15% 3.57% Gabriela 10 1.79% 2.98% AKBAYAN 8 1.43% 2.38% AGHAM 6 1.08% 1.79% UNA 6 1.08% 1.79%

ABAKADA 4 0.72% 1.19% Liberal 4 0.72% 1.19% Anakbayan 3 0.54% 0.89% Ang Profile 3 0.54% 0.89% Bayan Muna 3 0.54% 0.89% COOPNATCO 3 0.54% 0.89%

The table reflects that among those who responded on the question “Which party did

you vote for?” there are 172 or 51.19% who voted for ACT. During the survey, five out of

15 top party lists ostensibly represent teachers’ cause. They are composed of ACT, A

Teacher, Ating Guro, Agham, and ABAKADA. However Ating Guro, a neophyte political

group and Agham, a veteran organization failed to make it during the last election.

The teachers did not bother to ponder on the necessary considerations to vote for party

lists. However, there are a few who divulged that they want a representative in congress

who would vigorously pursue teachers’ welfare. A number of respondents said that they

voted for party lists because of the following: a) credibility, b) they were suggested by

family members/friends, and c) they used to conduct activities/programs for the benefit

of their constituents.

Mass media particularly the television has been very instrumental for introducing party

lists. For teachers, television provides a venue for more realistic and convincing

presentation of party lists and their programs. If there is one factor which is almost

identical to the impact of television to the respondents, it is the influence of family and

friends. Filipino teachers who live in a collectivist society still value the role of

relationships with their family members and friends. A party list therefore whose

bailiwick is composed of voters’ family members and friends, is assured of winning the

elections. Learning institutions are also a great source of persuasion for a party list to

get elected. This probably explains why there are a lot of party lists who introduce

themselves as representative of teachers. It should be noted that people who are in

schools have a lot of opportunities for getting to know party lists.

There are few teachers who said that they voted for party lists because of their

programs and services. It entails that party lists have to be visible by concretizing their

platforms. Even if they provide financial assistance or scholarships for students,

respondents feel that it is the least priority a member of congress has to do. Perhaps

party lists have to propose and pass laws which would benefit various sectors of the

society. It is very interesting to note that very few respondents elect party lists endorsed

by religious organizations. Perhaps it is along this line that teachers recognize the

separation of church and state.

Factors Determining Teachers’ Voting Behavior

The respondents answered invariably as to the reasons for their choice of senatorial

candidates. Based on the results of the survey, interview and focus group discussions,

several common themes emerged. Below is the table of comparing the factors identified

in the IPER study and the current study:

IPER Study PNU Study (1) Candidate’s popularity and public image (1) Personal Traits (2) Endorsement of traditional networks and organizations (2) Credibility and Reputation

(3) Characteristics that can benefit the voter (3) Advocacy

(4) Party program (4) Representative of "New Politics"

There are four (4) factors that influence teachers’ choice of candidates namely:

1. Personal Traits – The study showed that teachers vote for candidates who have

good educational background. They associate this with competence or aptitude

to lead. They also voted for “new comers” provided they have good educational

training and they project a pleasing personality or “charisma”. Grace Poe and

Bam Aquino both met these criteria. Bam Aquino exuded youthful and fresh

appeal to the teachers while Grace Poe was seen as calm and competent. They

were both seen as intelligent. Teachers were willing to give them a try despite

being new comers in the field.

2. Credibility and Reputation – The candidates’ reputation and credibility is

defined by his track record, family background, affiliations, commitment to

serve, and perception of trustworthiness. Generally, teachers prefer not to vote

for those who are not members of political families. However, given the roster of

official candidates, this is inevitable. They voted for Aquino, Angara, Gordon,

Pimentel, Villar, Escudero and Cayetano. But they did not vote for Ejercito,

Enrile, and Binay. They considered the track record of the candidate and their

political families. If they perceive such families as traditional and engaged in

corruption and abuse, teachers would not vote for their scion.

The track record of the candidates is important in being perceived as competent

despite being a member of a political family. Gordon and Hagedorn are both

considered as an “action man”. Their stint in government is remembered as

positive. They are both seen as leaders who are “mapamaraan” (ingenious) and

who can make things done. They both were perceived as disciplined and to have

a good work ethic. Their commitment to serve is valued by teachers. Angara,

Pimentel, Escudero, and Cayetano were viewed as competent and trustworthy.

Villar benefitted from a relatively good reputation of her husband who is a

former Senator and her own track record as former member of the House of

Representatives.

3. Advocacy – There are four issues that are close to the teachers’ hearts namely

Education, Environment, Good Governance, and Livelihood. Angara was

identified with education; Legarda and Hagedorn were remembered to be

advocates for the environment; Pimentel, Cayetano, Trillanes, and Escudero

projected themselves as corruption “busters”; and Villar and Aquino were

proponents of livelihood programs. Teachers view these four issues to benefit

the sector and the country. They best represent what teachers value.

4. Representative of “New Politics” – The inclusion of Hontiveros and the

relatively high rating of Casino in the teachers’ choices would show that there is

a growing sector within the teachers’ sector that advocates for “progressive

politics”. These two candidates belong to parties associated with non-‐traditional

parties in the Philippines. They represent the left of center politics associated

with calls for structural changes in the political economy of the country. Their

parties are critical of globalization, political dynasties, unbridled capitalism,

income disparity, and militarism. They advocate for genuine agrarian reform,

policies that will support re-‐distribution of wealth, and empowerment of the

poor and marginalized sectors.

While the above-‐mentioned factors could not be rated as to the degree of importance,

all of these influence the voters’ decision in choosing an election candidate. It is

noteworthy, however, that the primary determinants in choosing the senatorial

candidates among the respondents in this study are the candidates’ credibility, track

record, reputation of performance, knowledge and advocacy on specific social issues, as

well as some physical/social age factors such as age and educational background.

While the voters are likely to be influenced by impressions based on attractiveness,

popularity, and media images, among others, the above-‐mentioned characteristics have

significantly played a role in informing voters’ choices.

This goes to show that the respondents, or the teachers in particular, have gotten out of

the mold of the traditional election culture in the Philippines. If possible, they want to

junk the traditional politicians and their patronage politics. The respondents’/teachers’

cynicism about traditional Philippine politics could be due to the countless controversies

and seeming hopelessness besetting various political figures.

As such, during the recently concluded senatorial election, the respondents/teachers

have chosen younger but intelligent and promising, as well as issue -‐ and performance–

oriented candidates They have chosen alternative leaders, usually new and young

politicians, with new (progressive) ideas and who can infuse new ways of thinking and

doing things in the Senate.

Implications on Education

The most salient finding in this study is the difference between how teachers and the

general public voted. Three of the teachers’ choices did no win. What teachers value are

not necessarily shared by the majority of the voters. This makes for an interesting

analysis. Researches show that the school influences that political attitude of students.

How do we then account for the discrepancy in the results?

Based on 2008 education data, out of 100 Grade One pupils, only 66 finish Grade Six.

Only 58 of the 66 go on to enroll in first-‐year high school and only 43 finish high school.

Of the 43 who finished high school, only 23 enroll in college and only 14 of the 23

graduate from college. However, there is a steady decline in the drop out rate in

elementary and high school since 2010.

The high drop out rate implies that majority of voters did not have the benefit of gaining

from increasing level of political sophistication resulting from increasing level of

education. It is believed that educated people are more tolerant, more civically and

politically active, and more law abiding (Jammar etal, 2013). In the study of Sondheimer

& Green (2010), there is empirical basis supporting that education causes increased

political sophistication.

There are two competing points of view about the role of education in shaping citizens’

political knowledge and sophistication which in turn translate into voting decisions. One

is education as cause view (Converse 1972;Verba et al. 1995;Wolfinger & Rosenstone

1980).e.g., and see Campbell (2006) for a literature review).and the other as education

as not necessarily the cause but a proxy to other factors such as family socialization and

political orientation (e.g.,Berinsky & Lenz 2011; Burden 2009; Campbell 2009; Highton

2009; Kam & Palmer 2008; Sondheimer & Green 2010; Nie et al. 1996; Tenn 2005,

2007). In the study of Milligan et al. (2004), it was found that education has a positive

impact on voting in the United States (but not in the United Kingdom). While researches

yield competing results as regards the role of education in political sophistication of

citizens, it is interesting to note that there seems to be shared view that parents’

political views and the climate at home are among the factors greatly influencing

citizens’ political attitudes and knowledge. Teachers deal with parents as well. Programs

may be developed in school for parents’ civic education.

Two things are clear from the study. One, there is a need to reduce drop out rate so that

there will be more people who can benefit from civic education both through curricular

and co-‐curricular programs of schools. Two, schools should have civic education for

parents as well. It is only then that teachers can adequately perform their functions as

agents of political socialization. It goes without saying that teachers’ civic education

should be part of their professional training.

References:

Abinales, Patricio N., Amoroso, Donna J. 2005. State and Society in the Philippines . Anvil Publishing, Inc

Berinsky, A. J. & Lenz,G. S. 2011. ‘Education and Political Participation: Exploring the Causal Link’, Political Behavior, 33(3), 357–73. Burden, B. 2009. ‘The Dynamic Effects of Education on Voter Turnout’, Electoral Studies, 28, 540–9. Campbell, D. E. 2006. ‘What is Education’s Impact on Civic and Social Engagement’, in Desjardins, R. & Schuller, T., eds, Measuring the Effects of Education on Health and Civic Engagement. Paris: OECD Centre for Educational Research and Innovation. Converse, P. E. 1972. ‘Change in the American Electorate’, in Campbell, A. & Converse, P. E.,eds, The Human Meaning of Social Change. New York: Russell Sage. Gamalinda, Eric. 1992. Opinion, Polls, and Presidents.‖ 1992 & Beyond: Forces and Issues in Philippine Elections. Quezon City: Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism and Ateneo Center for Social Policy and Public Affairs Hayes, Danny. ―Has Television Personalized Voting Behavior‖. Political Behavior, Volume 31, June 2009 Highton, B. 2009. ‘Revisiting the Relationship between Educational Attainment and Political Sophistication’, Journal of Politics, 71(4), 1564–76. Institute of Electoral and Political Reform, 2003. Restudying the Filipino Voter Today.

Janmaat, J. G., Duru-‐Bellat, M., Green, A., & M�haut, P. (2013). Introduction. The Dynamics and Social Outcomes of Education Systems. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. doi:10.1057/9781137025692.0006

Kam, C. D. & Palmer, C. L. 2008. ‘Reconsidering the Effects of Education on Political Participation’, Journal of Politics, 70(3), 612–31. Lau, R.R. & D.O. Sears. 1986b. Social cognition and political cognition. The past, the present, and the future. In R.R. Lau & D.O. Sears, eds., Political cognition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Milligan, K., Moretti, E. & Oreopoulos, P. 2004. ‘Does Education Improve Citizenship? Evidence from the United States and the United Kingdom’, Journal of Public Economics, 88(9–10), 1667–95. Nie,N. H., Junn, J. & Stehlik-‐Barry, K. 1996. Education and Democratic Citizenship in America. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Persson, M. (2012). Does Type of Education Affect Political Participation? Results from a Panel Survey of Swedish Adolescents. Scandinavian Political Studies, 35(3), 198-‐221. doi:10.1111/j.1467-‐9477.2012.00286.x Popkin, S.L. 1994. The reasoning voter. Communication and persuasion in presidential campaigns . 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press Sniderman, P.M., R.A. Brody & P.E. Tetlock. 1991. Reasoning and choice. Explo rations in political psychology. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press Sondheimer, R. M. & Green, D. P. 2010. ‘Using Experiments to Estimate the Effects of Education on Voter Turnout’, American Journal of Political Science, 54(1), 174–89. Tenn, S. 2007. ‘The Effect of Education on Voter Turnout’, Political Analysis, 15, 446–64. Verba, S., Schlozman, K. L. & Brady, H. E. 1995. Voice and Equality: Civic Voluntarism in American Politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Westen, Drew, 2010. The Political Brain. THE ROLE OF EMOTION IN DECIDING THE FATE OF THE NATION. Public Affairs, New York. Wolfinger, R. E. & Rosenstone, S. J. 1980. Who Votes? New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

http://bulatlat.com/main/2009/05/30/as-‐cost-‐of-‐education-‐rises-‐dropout-‐rates-‐among-‐

filipinos-‐soar/#sthash.abZq368y.dpuf.

Voting Behavior of Teachers

Documents

Transcript of Voting Behavior of Teachers