A few days before Election Day, as the campaign for the presidency neared the homestretch, this political “game changer” happened! It has surprised almost all partisan camps, notably the contenders in an obvious two-cornered fight.

The game changer is the release of the finding of TruthWatch Philippines in an intercept survey that Ferdinand Marcos Jr. and Leni Robredo are actually locked, in the language of researchers, in a “statistical tie” —46% for him and 44% for her.  

TruthWatch conducted the intercept survey on May 1 at a Light Rail Transit 2 station in Antipolo City, after the firm’s nationwide house-to-house survey. 

That house-to-house survey, which was conducted on April 22-30, showed gains for both Marcos Jr. and Robredo: He got 55 percent and she got 32 percent of the electoral pie, from a sample size of 2,400 respondents.

But what fired the imagination of certain people, and infuriated others, was the statistical tie! When the report was sent to a truth-friendly editor of a premier broadsheet, the gatekeeper released the “fresh late-breaking story” through her tweet. Since her name is trusted and respected by social media followers, the tweet went viral.

Before I knew it, reactions to the report were pouring in, ranging from incredulity (“I am amazed this is even this close: a competent woman versus a 64-year-old guy who’d done nothing at all, all the years of his life. Is the reality that difficult to see?”) to understandable skepticism (“Metro Manila is NOT the Philippines” and “Do all voters go through a train or bus station? Hahaha!”).

About 90% of the responses were marked by rekindled hope and bright forecasts, given a glimpse of triumph in the polls—for example: ”Yes this one is a better sampling of how people really feel about the candidates.” 

Fits of Pinoy humor were aplenty in the comments, such as this: “As of the moment, BM is the PRESIDENT of the REPUBLIC OF PULSE ASIA … Let us see who will be the PRESIDENT of the REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES after the May 9 elections…” (caps supplied by reactors).

The intercept survey was initiated by TruthWatch to test the validity of its own second nationwide survey for the period April 22-May 1.  From the house-to-house method, TruthWatch shifted to a survey at the LRT 2  station in Antipolo, which serves 3,000 to 4,000 riders daily.  Its field researchers interviewed 300 respondents using the random sampling method. 

As generally defined, an “intercept survey” is a form of political or market research designed to gather feedback from respondents in the middle of an experience or activity in natural settings where people congregate—a train terminal, a bus station, a mall, etc. 

The switch to an out-of-home survey was prompted by views of University of the Philippines experts that the surveys as currently conducted are not indicative of the reality seen in huge political rallies, in the great number of meetings marked by much interest and passion, plus the massive defections from other political camps.

TruthWatch is a new firm, registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission, whose primary purpose is to engage in political and market research. The officers and advisers are academically committed experts in communication, political science, demography, public health and public governance. 

The members of its board are the following: Glicerio Sicat, former transportation undersecretary; Ruth Callanta, president of the Center for Community Transformation Inc.; John Gaisano, former chair of the Davao Chamber of Commerce; Antonio Pagaduan, research director of Mobilis Research; and myself, a professorial lecturer at the UP College of Mass Communication. 

We wanted to test our thesis that questions on political views and preferences should be asked of people who have the interest and competence in such subjects.

In our highly mobile society, most people are out of their houses, whether at work or on their way to it, and in other activities outdoors. We thought we should interview and engage people at railway terminals or bus stations for these political or election-related questions.

 It’s still all right to interview people at home for a market research project, to ask what cooking oil, soap, toothpaste, detergent, or shampoo they use, but not questions that are political in nature.

We have steered clear of criticizing fellow survey firms in their methodology. Instead, we are encouraging fellow practitioners of political and market research to engage in “industry introspection,” which should include reexamining our methodologies. 

The game changer has not only changed the narrative; it has also breathed fresh air into one camp’s campaign and kicked up steps to question the methodology. 

We have a ready answer to some criticisms: The case of the Antipolo railway station is only about that city. The statistical tie happened in that station—a result of a strictly scientific method run by the statistician’s book. Are we saying it may happen in another station or another place? We aren’t saying that. 

And yet we add: If another research firm uses the same methodology and random sampling and guards against bias—in a setting where workers and youths congregate—such a firm may stumble upon the same finding, the same truth. 

Truth proverbially sets one free!