The recent clime in political history is that of a likely presidentiable filing suit against influential survey companies because they have deeply influenced people’s mind to believing his political opponents rather than to believe in his favor.
I do believe that surveys when misunderstood likely turn the crest of the political wave into a threshold of disdainful course. It may or may not draw a concretized image from an impervious flow of opinions, but it slowly builds up an archstone in behavioral politics that may usually confound a limited sphere beyond the academics. At the very least, the baseline of recent events or an unlikely scene can crack spontaneity to uphold a desertion from actual reality.
In other words, a survey can procreate a variety of make-believe scenarios, to draw something that is not yet or has been empirically realized as a mindset or somewhat a deliberate concoction of idea based on previous experiences, hence, using certain scientific tools to support its findings can possibly derail a destined fact of events. Of course, it all depends upon the manipulators of the data gathered to bring out what perspective of mind they should like to show as the purview of the survey results that can intently spark a motion of continuity, just like a pendulum, purposely to hynotize, or rather epitomize an idol.
I do believe in survey that levels the rough playing field in order to draw from it a clearer view of events or amplify certain degree of opinion. But I think this is only good to intelligent and mature audiences who are engaged in the same manner of generating opinions or conclusive decisions. It surely is part of the academic perspective and is a conventional outflow of applications in theory and principles which practical knowledge usually disagree. However, when less educated individual who relies much of the opinions from those that come around his environment, truly the influence of a favorable survey will certainly affect his decisions.
Frankly, I would admit, I am one of those induced to believe and is convinced to believe.
The trend that has been drawn out of the serialized survey and are generally published in national papers, or even talked about by broadcast, clearly influenced my progressive attendance to the events being unraveled in our everyday political activities. I did like to trash it out once in a while believing that who I believe is right to the position will surely win with the grace of a mightyBeing. However, the hypothetical power of these surveys is a disturbing fact that greatly affected my mindset. It drove me to fear that to a certain extent people who’s been drawn to believe in the result of the survey would likely contend against the actual result of elections, thus, it would lead them to misjudge a concocted idea or else a make-believe scenario of events. And the what-if or the what-if-not faucets of creative imagination as drawn in the survey will surely turn the good political weather into a hurricane of civil chaos and disorder.
People are not generally aware of the scientific tools by which these survey companies are using in drawing up their hypotheses and the methodology of gathering the raw data they need along the way. Of course, we cannot discount certain possibilities that these survey companies can become the master drawer of events or it can also become victims of their own scientific lapses. Either ways can result to chaos or disorder eventually.
I have been observing the trend process of the survey that unravels the tendency of people to believe or not to believe in certain candidates. I think that the mechanics and methodologies are quite shrewd in formulation, but it seems that the conclusive result lead to a certain degree of favor to one or a few that are impliedly indicated as they revealed the results. Each survey companies are competing to amplify the veracity of their own survey results. And I do believe this is ultimately more than business!
As the campaign period is nearing to end, the mudslings are coated with choice words coupled with screwed dilapidation as it festered the political colors with shambles of intoxicated differences of opinion while swallowed in some degree by media hype and scoop-building drones. It is very intriguing to note further the ingenuity of those people involve in this type of campaign harassment as a tactical offensive to discredit the personality of certain candidate(s). Although the probability of truth in certain issues is believably mediocre, we can possibly imagine that we can draw a crooked line on their aging forehead while trying to cut the edge of their malevolent objective. This is a very dangerous course of history. Thus, it goes beyond the parameter of ordinary thinking by people whose knowledge of events are only limited to what is published and talked about rather than the truth which I believe are meddled with creative facts.
In the meantime, the candidates who are drawn to believe winning the contest are now on high gear to sustain what they thought is right or wrong in the survey. Of course, we could not discount the possibility that the primary aim of the candidates is winning the hearts and minds of the voting public and at the same time earn certain degree of adulation to inspire them to do best. But the worst case that we can think about is what money can do to realize this aim. Hence, we can note that large amount of money are flowing into the coffers of big media outfits earning millions of pesos while the only benefit earned by the voting public is the hypothetical belief of who is the right candidate.
Ultimately, until this hypothetical belief will be converted into an exercise of promised action, more particularly of benefits that can uplift the well-being of the whole country, I believe that any political exercises will always be marred by the same scenario of mistrust and ill-feeling. If it be so, there will be no seed of great statesmen who can grow from a political mosaic that crooked survey may usually draw.
Note: This article is also published with Bicolmail