WITH NUMEROUS external forces influencing the voters for the May 2010 elections, how could one vote wisely?

This issue was tackled on “Debunking Wise Voting,” a talk organized by the Politics and Governance (PoS100) classes, with Pulse Asia President Dr. Ronald Holmes and University of the Philippines-Diliman professor Randy David as speakers.

It was held March 3 at the Leong Hall Auditorium.

Vote for nation building

In an effort to define who a wise voter is, David said, “A wise voter must make a decision with a clear value, especially in line with nation-building.”

“What matters is [that] alam natin kung saan natin gustong pumunta ang ating bansa [we know what direction we want our country to go to].  We must know what we need to be and what we want to be as a nation,” he added.

David defined nation building as making decisions and building a self-reliant economy without depending on foreign power, and the capability to govern justly and with accountability. He also said that to vote wisely is to vote for the nation’s future.

“We should have leaders we can be proud of–to make us proud to become Filipinos,” he said.

Holmes, on the other hand, defined a wise voter as rational, informed, and sovereign. “A wise voter is someone who can calculate the costs and benefits of his [or] her voting position.  [He or she] does not make a decision unless he [or] she is informed.  And he or she should not be influenced by extraneous elements,” he said.

Holmes also spoke of the things that could influence the voting preferences of citizens. He said that the determinants of voting are usually socio-demographic attributes like family, party identification, candidate images, issue positions, and media, among others.

Mature voting

David also emphasized the importance of maturity in voting. He defined maturity as the capacity for self-reflection, self-examination, and self-criticism, and the capability to stand back and question one’s own choices.

“A wise voter is not content with just making a decision on a social issue. He goes beyond this and tests this decision against the decisions of others, [then] persuades others to vote in a way he [or] she has decided to vote,” he added.

He added that citizens always have reasons when voting for particular individuals but would rather give “publicly acceptable” answers.

“Most of the time, regardless of who we are, we tend to like particular individuals… Yet when pressed for reasons, we would be too embarrassed to admit the real reasons why we prefer a particular individual,” he said.

One student asked David who for him is the best candidate for the nation’s future. David refused to answer. He instead said that even though voters make the wrong decision, they will eventually learn in the process.

Positive response

Project Head for the PoS100 classes Joseph Francisco Ortega said that the speakers have successfully related the issue of politics to the people. “They tell you what is happening in our country and what should be done,” he said in Filipino.

Political Science senior Carlo Federico Demaisip agreed, “It was very informative. The speakers are experienced in the field.”

Good feedback was also shown when students and teachers alike asked questions during the open forum. “[The speakers] were able to answer most of the questions,” Ortega said.