IN the Philippines, election bandwagons can persuade voters to go with the perceived sure winner.

Many will do so as soon as they see a definite trend. Others will jump in at the last minute. The perception that someone will win is often created by surveys.

The two most prominent survey groups in the country are the Social Weather Stations Inc. (SWS) and Pulse Asia.

Very few academic studies have analyzed election bandwagons in the Philippines. An SWS study has denied its existence.

But signs of the existence of the bandwagon mentality during Philippine elections are easy to find. They are so obvious in our daily lives that perhaps this is why very few academics have attempted to prove it empirically.

Going with the winner

Remember the hot pan de sal, goto, shawarma and zagu crazes? Filipinos join bandwagons for many reasons, but the bottom line is they all want to be associated with a winning product or, in the case of elections, the leading candidate.

While experienced survey groups like SWS may conveniently dismiss the idea that people vote based on popularity, being influenced by others is quite normal in Filipinos? other pursuits.

Filipinos, for instance, often rely on other people?s opinions when choosing a restaurant?who is selling the best barbecue, sinigang na ulo-ulo or bulalo. It is normal for Filipinos to base their decisions on examples set by others.

Economist Harvey Leibenstein?s explanation of the bandwagon is useful in understanding Filipino crazes. He called bandwagon one of the ?irrational? bases of demand. He defined it as ?the case where an individual will demand more (less) of a commodity at a given price because some or all other individuals in the market also demand more (less) of the commodity.?

Bandwagons in elections usually work in four basic ways. If we consider them very carefully, they neatly fit into the template of Philippine elections.

First is the herd mentality, also called an information cascade. It happens when voters observe the choice of others (usually through survey results) and make the same choice. They do this without much thought, hence, the term herd.

The danger is that herd thinking is often mistaken for rational decision. Doing what other people are doing appears very rational. The danger for our country is that bandwagon voting can lead to erroneous choices, as exemplified by Joseph Estrada?s victory in 1998.

Second is by making voters take a second look at a candidate perceived to be winning (again, basically through survey results). Upon learning that a candidate is leading, voters will try to find a reason for this popularity by looking at his/her strengths. In other words, they try to rationalize the candidate?s popularity.

The voters then reconsider their support for other candidates, probably shifting their support from their original choice to the leading candidate. This new support is reflected in survey results thus generating more endorsement for the leading candidate.
Third is by influencing the actions of key actors in the election process. What is being influenced here is not the vote itself but the behavior of key actors: Financial supporters, youth and students, adult volunteers, local leaders, non-government organizations (NGOs), celebrity endorsers and media practitioners. Their collective decisions produce significant changes in the campaign terrain that influence the voters and condition the public?s attitude toward the election outcome.

Fourth, a long-term one, happens when repeated correct predictions through a series of elections make a survey group credible and respectable, giving it incredible power to influence the results of succeeding elections.

Right forecasts

The more correct predictions they make, the more trustworthy their surveys become, making them more capable of generating a bandwagon effect?dictating the tempo of elections and, in general, conditioning the public?s mind. Their predictions may start to have a self-fulfilling power.

SWS is a prime candidate for, if it has not yet reached, this status. It correctly predicted the presidential wins of Fidel Ramos in 1992, Estrada in 1998 and Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo in 2004; the vice-presidential wins of Estrada in 1992, Arroyo in 1998 and De Castro in 2004.

It made its forecast some two weeks before the results of the official count of the Commission on Elections in the years 1992 to 2004 were released.

Thus, the potential of SWS (and to a lesser extent Pulse Asia) to generate a bandwagon effect or condition the voters? minds in the 2010 elections is simply huge.

The good news is that bandwagons in elections are very fragile. New information, like those generated in public forums, can break them.

Smart Filipino voters, of which there are now many, can change their survey-induced support when they realize their behavior is based on limited information.

Even though millions of Filipinos have expressed support for a candidate after reading this month?s SWS or Pulse Asia report, new information can change their minds.

The point is to counter the survey-generated bandwagon with information based on the candidates? experience, qualifications and platforms. This is healthier for our 24-year-old democracy.

The author is a professor at the University of the Philippines Extension Program in Clarkfield.