Category: elections

mediocre media

and when the poll count stalled, the tv coverage stopped.  anywhere else in the world, a stalled automated election count would have been grist for the mill, something that would have excited, perked up, broadcast media, given them something to pounce on and monitor non-stop, its extent and implications for 2016 elections to discuss and debate, in the service of the filipino electorate.  instead, coverage petered out, pang newscast and regular programming na lang.  soooo in the service of their bosses?  bosses with vested interests in non-transparent automated elections?

o baka naman napakiusapan lang sila ni brillantes, as in, let’s not make a mountain out of a molehill, let’s not give gus lagman and the IT community a venue for venting, let’s not get the people agitated, let’s relax, take it easy.  argh.

c’mon, media.  level up naman. 

nothing brilliant about brillantes

so brillantes promises to resign, yet again ( the fourth time by sunstar‘s account), this time over last night’s partial proclamation of the top six winning senators.

There is no way the six candidates who were proclaimed as senators on Thursday night will be removed from the top 12 once the full results are in, Commission on Elections (Comelec) Chairman Sixto Brillantes said Friday.

“I will fight for it. I will resign if any of the six (winners) will be bumped off the (top) 12,” he told reporters, adding the six candidates have already netted enough votes to ensure election.

no doubt that those six are in the “magic” 12.  hindi naman iyon ang problema.  ang problema is the rush to formally proclaim them when the numbers are not all in.  you wonder why nga ba  brilliantes is so nagmamadali to proclaim anyone when the count has stalled, slowed down, with no clear and credible explanations.  it’s not as if these piecemeal proclamations render the automated system more credible.  the cloud of doubt only grows grayer and heavier.  it would seem that brilliantes is as much the problem as the pcos and cf cards.

didn’t vote

i had always voted, since the late 1960s when i came of age.

never voted for marcos, but he kept winning.  voted for cory in 86 but she was cheated and had to mount the huge protest that led to EDSA.  voted for salonga in 92 but fvr won.  voted for erap (how stupid of me) in 98 and he won but was edsa-ed.  voted for bro. eddie (he was talking alternative economics) in 2004 but arroyo won.  voted for jamby and her nationalist platform in 2010 but noynoy won.

kahit midterm elections, pinapatulan ko noon.  in may 2007, some months before i started blogging, i wrote Tipo kong iboto and sent it to everyone in my mailing list, including the inquirer.  all about voting on issues for a change.  economic issues, like the debt policy, e-vat, charter change, pork barrel.  wala rin.  once they won they forgot their promises, puro pangakong napako.

seeing no signs that it would be different this time, and praning over pcos, i didn’t vote na lang.  so yes wala akong kinalaman sa pagkakatalo ni jack enrile.  at wala akong kinalaman sa pagkakapanalo ni grace poe.  may kinalaman lang ako sa low turnout, well, lower than 2o10, na inaamin naman ni brillantes.

“junk the dynasts”

The case against political dynasties, after all, is very strong. First is the constitutional issue. Article II, Section 26 of the Constitution explicitly prohibits political dynasties. That Congress, as it provides, has not as yet defined what a political dynasty is by law shouldn’t matter to us voters. We should just use our own definition.

Second are the political issues—dynasties have made a mockery of the constitutional provision on term limits; dynasties and political warlordism go hand in hand (dynasts are the modern-day feudal lords).

And finally, there are the socioeconomic aspects: The empirical evidence clearly shows a significant relationship between political dynasties and lower per capita incomes, higher incidence of poverty, and lower human development indices (specifically, lower primary elementary completion rates) in their areas. If that isn’t disempowering and marginalizing, I don’t know what is.

Not to mention that members of political dynasties in Congress are wealthier (as evidenced by their statements of assets, liabilities and net worth) than their nondynast colleagues —which makes sense, because think of all the government resources that the combined efforts of dynasties can command. Dynasties do not go hand in hand with protecting public resources, reducing corruption, or complying with laws—which form part of the Ethics criteria in the MGG scorecard.

~ Winnie Monsod