What does Your Gut Tell You?

“Trust your gut” is what we often say when we make decisions—even for big ones that have life-changing consequences. It can be said that trusting our gut means trusting our instincts. We choose the option that we feel and believe can best increase our “chances for survival” or bring us the best opportunities. Whether it’s choosing which flavor of ice cream to get or deciding on a job offer, many times we just listen to what our gut tells us.

However, it may seem unwise if people “trust their guts” during elections. Elections bring about long-term or even permanent outcomes to our lives, so why vote based on instincts? Many would agree that people should give more thought to their votes. Logic and reason should come first before feelings. The outcome of elections can make or break people’s lives, so voting with our guts should not be an option altogether.

But is it really irrational? Maybe the inverse is true. Perhaps many people vote with their guts because they do think and reflect about their choices. They vote for candidates who they believe can help fill their stomachs and pay the bills. 

Art by Romi Okada

The majority of the Filipino electorate is from the middle and lower classes. Surveys show them as classes C, D, and E in our social media feeds and news outlets every election season. In Pulse Asia’s April 2022 Pre-elections Survey, the statistics are as follows: Class C - 7.5%, Class D - 76.63%, Class E - 15.63%. These classes will be more sensitive to their economic positions in choosing who to vote for. This “sensitiveness” comes because of economic insecurity for the lower class and its potential for the middle class. In any case, they would vote with their “gut” by looking at their opportunity cost. To put it simply, people will compare their immediate-present and future costs. They weigh the potential benefits that they can get now versus the potential benefits they can get in the future. For the middle and lower classes, these “benefits” come in the forms of what can help alleviate their economic hardships. For the lower class who deal with economic insecurity every day and the middle class who are just one hospital bill away from debt, financial and social amelioration are always appreciated. In other Filipino words, “kung ano ang malapit sa sikmura.” This is why we see people giving their votes to those candidates who are strong on ayuda, whether in the form of direct financial assistance, scholarship, burial assistance, and medical assistance, among others.

As such, we expect more people from these social classes to vote for candidates who are able to “fill their guts” in the immediate future. In terms of opportunity cost, they just cannot “afford” to wait for better policies. This is because those “good policies,” such as providing job opportunities, institutionalizing free healthcare, and increasing wages, take a long time before they get approved. Of course, candidates once elected cannot just write legislation or ordinances on the go. Much research, deliberation, and funding take place before such policies are approved, and even more is felt on the ground.

Take for example, on the one hand, Politician A promises to pass progressive bills that will improve the quality of life of their constituents. How long will a minimum-wage earner have to wait before they get their salary increase? How long before a civil servant with two children gets free medication for every medical consultation? On the other hand, Politician B promises a monthly payout for every family living in the district under their constituency. Such programs are more prone to corruption, but the money that people will get from these payouts will fill their stomachs. The differing needs of each family also mean that many people will consider financial and social amelioration more useful than the prospective opportunities that other candidates offer. “Programs” such as scholarships, health assistance, and burial assistance are of great economic help to the middle and lower classes.

Unfortunately, principles are not enough. People may want to vote for candidates whose policies would bring them great opportunities, but if it would mean economic insecurity in the short run, then the chances of that vote decrease. Another unfortunate thing is that candidates know how to exploit this by focusing instead on patronal programs (e.g., scholarships, financial assistance) instead of long-term goals. This is the dilemma that classes C, D, and E face every election. They are not bayaran. They do not sell their votes. They are not irrational voters–it is the opposite. They simply know their situation well.

People are not “dumb” when they vote with their guts. They are not at fault when they vote for candidates who are strong on ayuda or “payouts.” They are not “blinded by money.” They are not selling their votes. As a matter of fact, their votes are as rational as those who “do not sell” their votes. These people take into account their personal circumstances and weigh the different opportunity costs presented to them by each candidate. They vote with their guts because their economic positions make them ensure that their guts are alive in the long and short term. Making sure that stomachs are fed and bills are paid is a logical and rational act. It looks instinctual at first, but we should remember that ensuring survival is in itself a rational act.

Ultimately, this is a supply-side issue. It is true that because of this, candidates have a strategic incentive to just focus on the short term and give out big ayudas that they can. However, it is also true that providing financial assistance for the short term and opportunities for the long term are not mutually exclusive. The main challenge though is that most progressive candidates are either independent or come from smaller parties. They do not have as much resources compared to those candidates that come from large parties, are aligned with the incumbent, or are from political dynasties. This can be better seen in local elections where the opposition goes against established dynasties. Without enough resources, the opposition is not able to play along the “payout” game that traditional politicians, or trapos, often resort to during campaign periods. As such, although they can provide better long-term solutions, they may not be “felt” by many voters in the short term. Perhaps such progressive candidates can consider including more short-term projects in their platforms that can help them be “felt” by voters should they become elected.