- A study conducted by the Institute of Philippine Culture (IPC) says vote-sellers cannot be regarded as mere “bobotante”
- Based on the study, electorates sell their votes for various reasons specifically poverty
- Voters allegedly sell votes because they believe the money was either: grace, rightful money, earned money, accessible money and d**d money
Citing a study by the Institute of Philippine Culture (IPC), a professor of the Ateneo de Manila University said voters who sell their votes cannot, as a whole, be dismissed as mere “bobotante.”
Prof. Leloy Claudio explained that electorates are aware that the money came from certain candidates who, in turn, expect to be voted after voters accept what they offered.
“Isa lang ang napansin namin across the board, na lahat ng mahihirap na nagbebenta ng kanilang boto pinag-iisipan ‘yung prosesong ‘yun. Para sa amin hindi mo sila matatawag na bobotante dahil lang nag-e-engage sila sa vote-selling at vote-buying,” Claudio was quoted in an article published by GMA News.
[“We noticed one thing, all poor voters who sell their votes think of the process. For us, they cannot be called bobotante because they engage in vote-selling and vote-buying.”]
Base on the findings of the IPC study, electorates sold their votes because they believe that the compensation they received was either: biyaya or grace, rightful money, earned money, accessible money, and d**d money.
Voters who think they received “biyaya” felt beholden to the candidate and they are inclined to pay the gift back in some way, Claudio said.
Electorates who regard the compensation as rightful money perceived that what they received is something owed them because the government failed to provide them services. Likewise, they treat this as the money they paid in taxes coming back to them.
According to Claudio, people are aware of the shortcomings of the government and that vote-selling and vote-buying are merely ways of protest on what was deprived of them.
Meanwhile, voters who think of earned money regard vote-selling as the fruits of their labor by campaigning and volunteering for a certain candidate.
Accessible money, on the other hand, is just easy money for people brought into campaign rallies dubbed as “hakot” supporters.
As such, Claudio stressed most “hakot” supporters did not vote for the candidate who gave them money.
“Kung ‘hakot’ ka, nakatanggap ka ng pera, trabaho lang. Walang personalan. Ang interesting doon, ‘yung mga taong tingin nila ganoon ang vote buying, hindi nila binoboto ‘yung kandidatong nagbigay sa kanila ng pera,” he noted.
[‘If you belong to the ‘hakot’ you just get the money as payment for services. No personal involvement. What is interesting is that they think of it as vote buying; hence, they do not vote for candidates who give them money.”]
As a whole, Claudio said the study found that the poor vote was a thinking vote.
The IPC involved most respondents who were beneficiaries of the government’s Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program.
The Ateneo study found that the respondents in all the categories would opt to elect somebody based on the candidate’s principles and concern for the poor.