GE15: Surveys inaccurate when it comes to realities of the vote

AS THE hustings for the 15th General Election (GE15) kick into full gear, political parties and coalitions pull out all the stops to win votes.

Barisan Nasional has revealed a compelling manifesto with many promises of reform. Barisan wants more reforms to institutions, an Integrity Commission, parliamentary oversight and national minimum income.

Perikatan Nasional, meanwhile, calls its manifesto a "tawaran" or offer to the people and claims it will offer a clean and stable government.

Pakatan Harapan labels its manifesto an offering of hope along the same lines as its manifesto in the last general election. Pakatan also says it offers strong leadership, clean governance and economic empowerment.

I cannot take offence with the manifestos of all of the coalitions because they all sound good, but as we know, manifestos are seldom implemented in full.

As the campaign enters the final phase, everyone is obsessed with predicting the outcome.

I was actively involved in the last two general elections and less so in this one.

I tend to find surveys notoriously inaccurate because one survey outfit still doing surveys now predicted a Barisan sweep in the last general election two weeks before polling day.

Further, as campaign manager for Datuk Seri Mah Siew Keong in Teluk Intan, also in the last general election, I conducted many internal surveys through telephone calls and face-to-face interviews.

Some said Mah would win big, and some said Mah would win small. However, Mah lost to Nga Kor Ming of DAP by a significant margin.

So, what do surveys tell us about politics?

But before that, some context is also always necessary.

First, Malaysia is a first-past-the-post Westminster-style parliamentary system. Anyone who gets a plurality of votes in a constituency is the winner. It is pretty simple.

Second, popular votes make zero difference in deciding which party forms the government. Given how parliamentary seats are distributed in Malaysia, technically, a party with 30% of the popular vote can form the government if that party wins all the smaller rural seats.

Third, Malaysians have always been guarded about their voting preferences because of the natural fear it could be "big brother" from the government checking up on them.

Fourth, surveys fail to consider qualitative factors like party machinery, get-out-to-vote initiatives (especially in rural areas), party infighting and candidacy.

Fifth, surveys also fail to consider expected voter turnout and tend to assume this.

Sixth, social media is never a safe barometer because political parties spend a lot of money to skew the social media debate in their favour and social media algorithms create an echo chamber – anyone on TikTok will know what I mean.

Seventh, this time around, it is not a two-horse race but a three-horse race. Predictions become even more notorious. For example, the anti-Barisan voters do not need to choose Pakatan; they can vote for Perikatan.

The jaded Pakatan voter may decide to return to Barisan and not go for the “neutral” choice of Perikatan.

Also, there is palpable anger against Perikatan candidates who defected from PKR and is this mood being captured in the surveys?

We do not know.

The recently concluded mid-term elections in the United States are a cautionary tale. Most pollsters predicted a red Republican wave, but it turned out to be a Republican whisper. And the reason for this was because of voter turnout and early voting.

By the time the mood shifted in favour of Republicans, most Democrat-leaning voters had already voted by post. So again, qualitative factors matter.

As I write this, there is a WhatsApp message circulating stating that Pakatan will be the biggest party, followed by Perikatan and Barisan in last place.

I cannot establish the veracity of the message, but it could be the work of people who are probably just sitting at home crunching some numbers and circulating it.

Also, polls generally do not tell the whole story. We look at the figures, then we see the breakdown by seats. Something is wrong because of the lasting benefits of being a political operative; one has friends in many parliamentary constituencies.

After receiving the figures from one survey, I called some friends in southern Pahang to check the local mood, which did not jive with the figures I received. So, my scepticism of polls in the Malaysian context is understandable.

The United Kingdom practises the same electoral system as us and has a three-party system; however, in the UK, predictions are more straightforward because people tend to be franker about voting preferences.

Also, pollsters have a "swing-o-meter" to break down the popular voters and see how it affects the constituency vote. I do not know of any pollster in Malaysia having such a system in place.

I will not make any predictions, but I will say this; it remains a very open race, and in all likelihood, we will continue to see some form of a coalition government in place after polling day.

Is this a bad thing?

NO!

The previous coalition government delivered reforms such as the anti-hopping laws and greater checks and balances. So, we must look at this prospect within the context of the good it can do for Malaysians.

Also, a side-effect of more significant democratic space is uncertainty. So we must get used to it and trust the laws and system to deliver a government.

As Malaysians, what can we do?

We have to vote. We have to elect those who we feel best to lead us. Only then does democracy work.

The views expressed here are entirely the writer’s own.