Catholicity rankings of Philippine senatorial candidates and political parties using Catholic Vote data

 

 Catholic index of senatorial candidates based on updated Catholic Vote data published 12 May 2013

Catholic index of senatorial candidates based on updated Catholic Vote data published 12 May 2013

UPDATE 12 May 2013

These are the Catholicity rankings of senatorial candidates based on the updated Catholic Vote data published last May 12, 2013.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-frc1/482644_171759259651048_911604752_n.jpg

The parameters of interest are “Reproductive Health Law”, “Divorce”, and “Same-Sex Marriage”. For each “No” answer, I replace it by +1; for each “Yes” answer I replace it by -1. The sum of the scores is the Catholic Index with +3 as Catholic (agrees with the teachings of the Catholic Church) and -3 as anti-Catholic. I arranged the groups into Team Buhay (+3 Catholic Index), Team Agaw-Buhay (+1 or +2 Catholic Index), and Team Patay (0, -1, -2, and -3 Catholic Index). Please share the table. Thank you very much. Each vote counts. Let us show them that Catholic Vote exists.

Let us vote only those with +3 Catholic Index and forget about the rest. Be sure to include in your list the four senatorial candidates and the party-list supported by Filipinos for Life:

For senators: #9 David, #10 de los Reyes, #20 Llasos, and #23 Magsaysay (Mitos)
For Party-List: #42 Ang Pro-Life.

 

ARCHIVE 24 May 2013

by Quirino Sugon Jr. [1,2]

Abstract

In this paper, I propose a simple ranking system for Philippine senatorial candidates based on the candidates’ opposition to the Reproductive Health Law, divorce, and same-sex marriage, as compiled by Catholic Vote Philippines. In this system, we replace the thumbs up icon by +1 and the thumbs down icon by -1, then add all the ratings for each candidate get a scale from -3 to +3 at intervals of 1 unit, with -3 as anti-Catholic and +3 as Catholic. We refer to this scale as the Catholicity scale. We then group candidates according to political parties and compute the average party stand on the issues. We add the average party stand to the candidate’s stand to arrive at the party-influenced stand of the candidate. Finally, we compute the Catholicity of the party-influenced stand of the candidate and rank the senatorial candidates accordingly.

Read the full paper:

Catholicity rankings of Philippine senatorial candidates and political parties using Catholic Vote data

(DISCLAIMER: The opinions, equations, and senatorial candidate rankings published by the author in this paper may not reflect the opinions of Manila Observatory, Ateneo de Manila University, and the Catholic Vote Philippines.)

[1] Upper Atmosphere Dynamics Program, Manila Observatory, Ateneo de Manila University Campus, Loyola Heights, Quezon City, Philippines

[2] Department of Physics, School of Science and Engineering, Ateneo de Manila University, Loyola Heights, Quezon City, Philippines

Date Published: 25 April 2013, Feast of St. Mark the Evangelist

Catholicity rankings of the stands of senatorial candidates added to the stands of the (average) party persona for the three issues: anti RH law, anti-divorce, and anti same-sex marriage.

Catholicity rankings of the stands of senatorial candidates added to the stands of the (average) party persona for the three issues: anti RH law, anti-divorce, and anti same-sex marriage.

Catholicity ranking of the stands of each senatorial candidate on anti RH law, anti-divorce, and anti same-sex marriage.

Catholicity ranking of the stands of each senatorial candidate on anti RH law, anti-divorce, and anti same-sex marriage.

Catholicity ranking of the total stands of the candidates of each political party regarding anti RH law, anti-divorce, and anti same-sex marriage.

Catholicity ranking of the total stands of the candidates of each political party regarding anti RH law, anti-divorce, and anti same-sex marriage.

Catholicity ranking of stands of the average candidate of political parties on anti RH law, anti-divorce, and anti same-sex marriage.

Catholicity ranking of stands of the average candidate of political parties on anti RH law, anti-divorce, and anti same-sex marriage.

About Quirino M. Sugon Jr
Theoretical Physicist in Manila Observatory

3 Responses to Catholicity rankings of Philippine senatorial candidates and political parties using Catholic Vote data

  1. Tom says:

    This proposed ranking system is highly dependent on the CVP rating, This means, whatever the bias and errors of the CVP carries over to this ranking. First of all, it is not clear nor transparent who the CVP raters were and the criteria for their rating. Second, having a three tier (actually just two, i.e., thumbs up and thumbs down; the third category for uncertain essentially does not really count) basically oversimplifies complex issues into a highly simplistic, naive yes/no answer. Likewise, this ranking system also assumes a complex person can be reduced to, essentially a 3-point scale (or dual yes/no answer). In short, the input data should be scrutinized first, else what you have is — GARBAGE IN = GARBAGE OUT!

    Aside from highly problematic data input issues stated above, the proposed ranking methodology is also questionable on various grounds. For example, it assumes all three issues (i.e., RH, divorce, same sex marriage) have equal weights (e.g., in terms of importance and impact to the general population, to the church authorities, and to the individual catholic). The number of candidates from the same party also biases the results (more = higher points whether + or -). It also assumes that the value of the “average” calculated points directly substitutes for the degree of “group influence” over the individual’s will. The latter is an assumption that still remains to be tested.

    Then there’s the problem with “independents.” It seems the author treated them collectively as a party in itself. (see second and third tables). By definition, independents are folks with their own thinking that are not necessarily in line with any party affiliation. Hence, they cannot be lumped together as if they belong to the same (single) party.

    At a higher level, it seems the term anti-catholicism vs. (sic) “pro-“catholicism has been arbitrarily defined (albeit implicitly) as a “anti-catholic church vs. pro-catholic church” hierarchy’s stand — not necessarily whether they conform to catholic or christian values. Hence, the first question to ask should have been, “What do you mean by being anti-catholic? or pro-catholic? What is a “catholic” in the first place? Do you define a catholic based on whether they agree (or practice) with the church authority’s pronouncements or not? If this is the case, most Filipinos cannot be considered “catholics” despite the fact that they are baptized as such. (Note: Obviously, either you’re a catholic or you’re not — hence, you cannot have a third category (i.e., undefined for those who’s stand is not clear)).

    This dichotomy is made evident by the results of polls conducted in the U.S. or Europe, where the catholic hierarchy’s stand differs significantly from the parishioner’s (or the people’s) stand on those three issues. With this in mind, a key question to ask is, “What does the catholicisity index really measure?” If it measures how the candidates adhere to the church authorities’ stand on various matters that have an influence on the general population, then this index is nothing but a propaganda tool to influence the vote (essentially no different from vote buying) — and a bogus scientific exercise at best.

  2. Quirino M. Sugon Jr says:

    Tom,

    Yes, you are right in many points. I think the CVP can publish actual statements of the candidates, so that we can verify their rating and propose our own ratings if needed. But you have to start somewhere, and I start with CVP data because it is the only data available. Others can generate a better data set, and I would be happy to look at it. If we assume that the CVP is true, then these are the results–this is what the paper simply is.

    You are right that the about the problem of equal weights of the three issues. Since we don’t know what should be the actual weights, the best guess is to put them at equal weights. This is referred to as the assumption of equal a priori probabilities.

    Group influence over how a candidate votes is a hypothesis. We don’t still have data to actually test this hypothesis.

    Independents can be treated individually. But I treated them as a homogeneous group in the same way as though fishes move independently, but they also sometimes exhibit swarm behavior.

    I define Catholicity by adherence to the teachings of the Catholic Church. And I use this definition to churn out the numbers. Different definitions would lead to different results. You may like to propose your own definition. If we have data on whether a voter is baptized Catholic, considers himself as Catholic, and whether he will support the Church’s stand regarding the issues or not–then this would be an excellent data layer and we can define indices that measure the difference in the definitions of what Catholicity is. Very, very interesting.

  3. This is interesting , we can see who has strong faith in god and has made godly deeds and also to the issues including the spiritual beliefs :)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: