The Philippines is one of the few countries that allow ballots to be split between candidates of varying party lists. Back in 2018, the Consultative Committee had considered including a joint-ticket voting in a draft constitution proposed to the president. Article VIII, Section 4 of the drafted “Power to the People: Bayanihan Federalism, Power to the Regions” mandates that the president and the vice president be elected as a team. A vote for the presidential candidate would be counted as a vote for his running mate, who upon assumption of office would be appointed as Member of the Cabinet without the need for confirmation. The proposition is arguably sensible and many scholars and political pundits have backed this; the pros would argue that such provision would make room for less conflict and a relatively cohesive government considering that the two highest officials share the same ideology, platforms, and direction.
Split tickets: what does research say?
A key study on democracy in the early 50s showed that voters prefer policies that line up to their ideals. Today in the 21st century, research underscores there are also cases when the voter plainly opts for parties sharing power in spite of ideology. But split tickets imply uncertainty on the part of the voter.
Further research says a divided government is, in part, caused by individuals who are divided within themselves. Split-ticket voting would allow voters to have “a foot in each camp” with their ambivalence consisting of their considerations of pros and cons, wins and losses. A 2011 study on this phenomenon in political psychology pointed that prevalence of divided government is usually driven by split-ticket voting where president and vice president from different political parties are elected at the risk of clashing viewpoints and principles in governance. In essence, it can be likened to having an opponent join your team in hopes of reaching a compromise; and if such is the case, a coalition or arriving at a political concurrence is not likely to be the most immediate outcome.
Moreover, a split ticket allows personality to steal the spotlight from policy agendas. Voters rely heavily on what they know about the person rather than what policies candidates lay on the table or how the advocacies of the party, as a team, will benefit the citizens and align with public interest.
Here in the Philippines, our party system, however, is not exactly the most durable.
Alliances built through bargaining among politicians with little to no regard for commonalities in method and goals often make these ties fickle ones where there is always an option to jump ship.
Mechanisms like this don’t engender stronger shared principles within parties, making tandem voting the lesser option.
To some extent, split-ticket voting provides a kind of “electoral insurance policy” as pundits Barry Burden and Gretchen Helmke put it. When either official falls short of the duties required of them, voters seem to have a safety net to fall back on. If a tandem vote was required, there is a risk of “wasting” a vote since a single ticket grants seats for two, regardless of how the voter perceives either individual and it would appear as though it is an impediment to the Filipinos' liberty to choose.
Despite the possibility of instability, split tickets can be used to an advantage: accountability and transparency can be better reinforced when officials, being under competing party lists at odds with the other’s approaches, keep each other in check and push them to disclose information that would not have been as evident in a unified government. A certain degree of animosity allows this.
The current administration
Amid the costs and benefits of both split and joint tickets, it’s important for voters to consider context.
Duterte, belonging to the PDP-Laban political party which already has enough of its own fissures among members, held office on June 30, 2016. The people awaited the “changes” that were promised but among those were uninterrupted cases of abuse, unidentified gunmen, police brutality, "collateral damage," and supposed "jokes" to be taken lightly. In a rewind to 2018, the maverick ruler said EJK was the "only sin" he was guilty of. How far the president's obfuscation has taken the country, how his "War on Drugs" left many devastated and enraged – a lot has transpired but the same unorthodox measures with no regard for human rights, profanity-laden speeches, red-tagging and impunity for those in power still linger today. Terror has since been the corollary of an overtly unjust system plagued with double standards and the steep decline in the recognition of basic human rights.
Political analyst Herman Kraft describes Duterte’s association with his party list as a factor that plays no part in his own politics. But if a tandem vote guarantees a place for another leader of the same mold, then the weight shifts to the bearing of the voter's informed opinion and how crucial it is in deciding the fate of the country.
A vote – every person’s invaluable asset
Whether or not voting for a president and vice president as a tandem works for a certain country depends on the nature of the political system. Other factors like candidate popularity and voter uncertainty may also be at work.
But while there is no single prescription for every type of government and as an array of forces shaping vote choice vary tremendously in the electoral environment, I believe that spotting ineffective governance and putting the blame on split-voting would be a misstep.
The seemingly partisan ambivalent split-ticket voting may indirectly usher people to balance the parties in terms of ideology. And, as a result, voters could conclude with a platform-reliant decision that would not stray from their ideals.
Considering the current administration and the unpredictable political arena, my stand would be on split-voting. Even if voters do not elect a tandem from irresolute party lists, we should, with wise judgement, select leaders who can work collaboratively without abandoning policies that favor the people.
Here at the Lumiere Gazette, we love ideas that inspire creative thought, empower others to explore different stances, and even push people to further inquiry. Share your thoughts on the issue; we’d love to hear from you.
コメント