The following is my English translation of a new 'intelligence' and 'measurement scale' conceptualized by Rogie Ylagan (via AJ Perez's article http://tapatph.com/2013/03/bobotante-ka-ba/).
Everyone check your level of VQ or voter's quotient (or voter's intelligence). It takes a score of just one guilty offense to make your VQ = O (major fail).
-----------------------------------------
Are you a dumvo (dumb voter)? Take this test to confirm:
1. The bettor/gambler (“My vote will be wasted because my candidate won't win anyway.”)
You turn your vote into a bet. You think your candidate isn't winnable, so you don't vote for her even though she's fit for the job. Now you vote for someone you don't really approve of but has a bigger chance of winning. Congratulations! You win, like you've won on your bet in the racetrack or the cockpit. Now what's your prize? How many years have you been voting this way? Have you won big, or still stuck big time at the pits?
2. The 'sure ball' (They're greenhorns/newbies. They haven't proven anything yet.")
You say they are inexperienced, that's why you voted familiar surnames. So the familiar names win again, because as you said, they already have a track record, they have proven themselves, they have the experience. Well, just like you have experienced the hardship of poverty. Just like a lot other people have great experience with corruption, or in fact now experts at it, and thus are now too hard to catch.
3. The random shooter ("I don't know the candidates, so whichever name I see on the ballot would be it.")
There are a lot of websites that introduce the candidates. If you buy a cellphone, you do major research, even pestering the people around you with questions. You even scrounge for bargains. You have a lot of Facebook time, but no time to get acquainted online with the candidates? Then you complain about the awful lineup of winners?
4. The relativist ("I'll vote for this son/daughter/sibling/cousin of this guy. He's an ok guy, so his relative must be ok too.")
It's not right to judge a candidate's fitness based on consanguinity. The theory of 'relativity' may have benefits, true, but this may be a good thing or a bad thing. But if this is your only basis for voting, then you are what we might call a dumvo, a dumb voter.
5. The sucker ("That's a famous person/celebrity, so I will (or will not) vote for him.")
The candidate's job where he found fame should not be the sole basis of voting. It can be a possible basis, but there are other means of judging his qualifications apart from fame or name recall.
6. The draft evader ("I will no longer vote because it's useless.")
That's probably alright, but you lose the right to complain. Because your abstention will mean indirectly supporting people you don't want to win.
(The original Tagalog post by Rogie here: http://theignoredgenius.blogspot.com/2013/02/6-bobotante-guide-para-sa-eleksyon-2013.html)
Are you a dumvo (dumb voter)? Take this test to confirm:
1. The bettor/gambler (“My vote will be wasted because my candidate won't win anyway.”)
You turn your vote into a bet. You think your candidate isn't winnable, so you don't vote for her even though she's fit for the job. Now you vote for someone you don't really approve of but has a bigger chance of winning. Congratulations! You win, like you've won on your bet in the racetrack or the cockpit. Now what's your prize? How many years have you been voting this way? Have you won big, or still stuck big time at the pits?
2. The 'sure ball' (They're greenhorns/newbies. They haven't proven anything yet.")
You say they are inexperienced, that's why you voted familiar surnames. So the familiar names win again, because as you said, they already have a track record, they have proven themselves, they have the experience. Well, just like you have experienced the hardship of poverty. Just like a lot other people have great experience with corruption, or in fact now experts at it, and thus are now too hard to catch.
3. The random shooter ("I don't know the candidates, so whichever name I see on the ballot would be it.")
There are a lot of websites that introduce the candidates. If you buy a cellphone, you do major research, even pestering the people around you with questions. You even scrounge for bargains. You have a lot of Facebook time, but no time to get acquainted online with the candidates? Then you complain about the awful lineup of winners?
4. The relativist ("I'll vote for this son/daughter/sibling/cousin of this guy. He's an ok guy, so his relative must be ok too.")
It's not right to judge a candidate's fitness based on consanguinity. The theory of 'relativity' may have benefits, true, but this may be a good thing or a bad thing. But if this is your only basis for voting, then you are what we might call a dumvo, a dumb voter.
5. The sucker ("That's a famous person/celebrity, so I will (or will not) vote for him.")
The candidate's job where he found fame should not be the sole basis of voting. It can be a possible basis, but there are other means of judging his qualifications apart from fame or name recall.
6. The draft evader ("I will no longer vote because it's useless.")
That's probably alright, but you lose the right to complain. Because your abstention will mean indirectly supporting people you don't want to win.
(The original Tagalog post by Rogie here: http://theignoredgenius.blogspot.com/2013/02/6-bobotante-guide-para-sa-eleksyon-2013.html)
Posts
1 comment:
Post a Comment