Abstract

The study aimed to determine the primary reasons why students chose to vote or
not to vote in the 2016 SSC election. The study utilized a descriptive survey method
conducted by the researchers among the 377 student respondents randomly chosen
from the six departments of the University of Saint Louis. The data was gathered through
a non-normative questionnaire with a 5 point Likert Scale. The questionnaire consists of
two parts which is further divided into 3 subparts. The first part is for the voters and the
second part is for the non-voters. The results showed that students voted because it is
their right, responsibility and duty as a student and also because it is easier to vote
through the automated voting process. On the other hand, non-voters answered that
they did not vote because they are busy or they do not have time and that the time is not
enough to accommodate all the students. The results further revealed that for voters and
non-voters, to be able to encourage non-voters to vote, election should be conducted on
a more convenient day and more information on when or where election will be.
Regardless whether they voted or not, most of the respondents perceived that voting is
very important.

Keywords: Voter Turnout, Sex, Year Level, Department

Introduction

Low voter turnout in different countries all over the world has garnered
considerable attention and concern. In fact, a lot of researches has been conducted and
resulted to many reasons and theories about why electors vote while others do not.
Same is through when it comes to student politics. One also of the lingering problem
when it comes to student elections are the factors as to why some students vote while
others do not that affects voter turnout.

The Supreme Student Council is a major organization of the University of Saint

Louis, comprising of competent, trusted and responsible student-leaders, who are
believed to cater the needs of the studentry. According to Professor Glenn Omatsu, in
his Student Leadership Training Booklet, students need to learn leadership skills in
college so that can help their communities. It was also discussed in the said booklet the
two approaches to leadership namely the Shared Leadership and Traditional
Leadership, respectively. According to this traditional approach, a leader is a strong and
powerful individual someone who makes decisions, commands many others, and
speaks with charisma. On one hand, Shared Leadership is the ability of a person to work
well with others as part of a team.

Election as defined is the process of selecting a person or persons for office by

vote (Wikipedia). In fact, this is the process that will determine who will be taking the
office. In the University, elections are held annually on January wherein the students are
given the freedom to choose on whom they believe will serve them well. Also,
campaigns are held a week before the elections for them to present their speeches and
platforms. Still aside from the set qualifications, there are other factors that the voters
look into. Examples are, the department of the candidate to which he belongs, his
charisma and appeal and his leadership background. The main focus of this study is the
primary reasons why some students exercise their right to vote while others do not.
 According to the Dean of Student Affairs, only 43.71% voted during the previous
Supreme Student Council election. Turnout in an election is thus thought to be a
measure of political participation, the legitimacy of the government and generally how
well a democracy functions. Low turnout is thought to signal that something is wrong in
society, and in developed democracies, low turnout would be if less than 70 percent of
the eligible population votes (Rose et al, 2004). Therefore, the result indicates that there
is a low voter turnout in the university. In a much cited article based from 1996 APSA
Presidential address, Arend Lijphart calls low turnout a serious democratic problem and
democracys unresolved dilemma, the reason being that it makes the operation of
electoral democracy unequal: some voices are heard and others are silent. In the eyes
of many democratic theorists (Barber, 1984; Pateman, 1970) participation is essential for
democracy and there is a general feeling among many politicians and political
commentators that high turnout is important for democracies. Like the national elections,
school elections must also be of freewill of the electors.

According to Charles Prysby and Carmine Scavo in their study, Analyzing

Voters Behavior, it says that voter may decide on the basis of one or more of the
following considerations: (a) evaluations of the personal qualities of the candidates; (b)
general assessments of the performance of government; (c) orientations on specific
issues of public policy; and (d) basic loyalty to or preference for a particular political
party. Also voters frequently judge candidates by their personal characteristics. They
form images of the personal qualities and abilities of the candidates and these
perceptions are important influences on the vote. Included among the relevant
characteristics are such things as the knowledge, experience, honesty, morality,
compassion, competence, and leadership ability of the candidates.

The most important factors for voters in choosing the candidates are those from
whom they will benefit the most. Good governance is not a major factor to consider in
their decision making. Further, candidates win the elections mainly because of the
political machinery, platform, popularity and public image (Institute for Political and
Electoral Reform, 2003).

It is along this premise that the researchers conducted this study in order to
determine the primary factors on why other students vote while others do not. And to
solve the schools unresolved dilemma which is the low voter turnout.

Statement of the Problem

The aim of this study is to identify the factors that caused students to choose to
vote or not to vote during the election for SSC SY. 2016-2017 at the University of Saint
Louis Tuguegarao. Specifically, it aims to answer the following questions:

1. What is the profile of the respondents in terms of:

a. Sex
b. Department
c. Year Level

2. For the respondents who voted:

a. What are their primary reasons for voting.
b. What they think would encourage non-voter to vote.
c. How important is voting for them.
3. For the non-voters:
a. What are the primary reasons why they did not vote.
b. What would encourage them to vote for the next election.
c. How important is voting for them.

4. Is there a significant difference in the reasons of voting or non-voting when grouped

according to the profile variables?

Significance of the Study

This study could be of relevance to the university, student voters and the
candidates in its attempt to increase their awareness on the issue regarding the primary
reasons why some students vote while others do not that may result to low voter turnout.
It is also intended to help in learning the voting behaviour of students towards Supreme
Student Council Election. The result of this study will greatly benefit the university in a
way that they can come up with ideas to encourage and motivate the student voters to
vote during elections which in turn will help the voters to actively participate during
election time because of the very reason that every vote counts. It allows the
researchers to explain the election outcome and to provide an understanding of electoral
dynamics. This research can also serve as a guide to student-leader candidates during
campaign period in coming up with their platforms that can catch the attention of the
voters not only to vote for them but also to increase the voter turnout here in the
university.

Literature Review

Underpinning Theory

The framework of this study is premised on the Pure Rational Choice Theory of
Anthony Downs. Rational choice theories assume that individuals weigh up the costs
and benefits which accrue to them as a result of their actions. According to the theory
there are some of the stylised facts that are mentioned for a voters course of action and
these are the following: First, first-order elections (for national parliaments) tend to
attract more voters than second order elections (for European, regional or local
parliaments) (Reif and Schmitt, 1980; Marsh, 1998). Second, some people have a higher
likelihood of showing up at the polls. This holds for richer or more-educated individuals,
partisans and women. Younger voters, as well as the elderly, are less likely to cast a
vote (Lijphart 1997). Third, people abstain to a large extent because they are alienated,
that is they feel that no parties represents their ideas (Kirchgassner, G. 2003) Fourth,
voters are more likely to show up under proportional electoral systems and when the
candidates are in a neck-and-neck race (Ladner and Milner, 1999; Shachar and
Nalebuff, 1999). Lastly, voters defect from their true preferences in some cases to cast
insincere or strategic votes.

Pure Rational Choice Theory considers the Downsian model which indicates that
if no one votes the democratic system fails (Downs, 1957).Therefore, some people may
vote to see democracy continue, and derive a consumption benefit of voting equal to the
value of the increased chance of survival of democracy (Riker and Ordeshook, 1968).
Whereas, the consumption benefit of voting can explain positive turnout levels. A rational
voter will turn out, therefore, when he or she considers that the benefits outweigh the
costs of voting (Downs 1957;McLean 1986; Dunleavy 1990). Furthermore, much of the
literature on turnout and marginality relies on constituency level data and so is open to
the risk of the ecological fallacy.

This is a severe challenge for the Downsian model. However, Matsusaka and
Palda base their conclusions on survey data which uses individuals recall of whether or
not they voted. There are systematic biases in this sort of data: not only are non-voters
relatively unlikely to take part in survey research, but those who do are prone to
misremember their actions and report voting when in fact they did not. Their results are
tantalising, therefore, but are not. It then gives a brilliant idea that expressive voting is a
form of being rather than doing. Interestingly, the expressive utility of voting is initially
positively related to the number of other voters for the same candidate because of some
herding or contagion effect to voting. Still, if all voters vote for the same candidate, a
voter cannot express himself or herself as belonging to a well-defined group. Ideally, it
deals with how a person uses his own free will during election days and how well he
became as an ethical voter. The behavioural assumptions of the Downsian model
provides more realistic models and leads to promising predictions as to the individuals
decision to head to the polls. Incorporating the role of the social groups and learning in
particular can be regarded as important strides towards understanding the individuals
decision to cast a vote.

This study tackles the problem why some students do not exercise their right to
vote while others do not. The perspective then of the Pure Rational Choice Theory is
furnished with ideas that can truly help and solve myriad of problems with regards to
election. Hence, this study is not only through to the said university but it is also through
to places that have the same problem with regards to low voter turnouts and to give an
insight of the reasons why some people do not exercise such right.

Discussion of the Literature by Themes

Voter turnout by Age

According to America Goes to the Polls 2012 GAPS Reporting the recent years
turnout among aged 18-29 has increased in presidential elections, reaching a high of
51% of the citizen youth population in2008. In 2012, the number dropped to 45%, lower
than estimates had predicted. 45% of citizen youth aged 18-29 turned out in 2012, down
from 51% in 2008. The result of 2012 election is only an example of how voter turnout is
gradually decreasing during election time. And not only that the study also shows that in
the year 2012 it did not even reach half of the registered voters. So this is a clear
manifestation that voting is a vital problem. In fact, registration and voting barriers
disproportionately impact young voters, who tend to be much more mobile than other
groups and are increasingly diverse. However, reforms such as pre-registration, online
registration, and same day or Election Day registration all have the potential to
significantly increase turnout among young voters.

In 2011 a research conducted by Block, et.al., in Elections in Canada found out

that turnout steadily increased with age from 38.8% for ages 1824 to 75% for ages 65
74 and then declined to 60% for those 75 and older. For 2011, those eligible to vote for
the first time federally includes those born between October 15, 1990 and May 2, 1993.
These youth voted at slightly higher rates (40.5%) than those youth that were previously
eligible (37.8%).Official turnout for the 41st federal general election held on May 2, 2011
was 61.1%, 2.3 percentage points higher than the all-time low of 58.8% for 2008. The
participation in 2011 is comparable to the turnout seen in other elections since 2000, but
much lower than participation prior to 1993, when turnout typically varied between 70%
and 80%. Therefore, the youngest age group can be further broken down by whether
they were eligible to vote in the previous general election or not. The use of alternative
voting methods, advance polls or special ballots, tends to increase with age. The study
shows that the use of advance polls was higher in 2011 than for each of the three
previous elections in each age group. In spite of a small increase in participation in 2011,
younger electors are still voting at a lower rate than older electors. This suggests that
initiatives directed at improving the participation of younger electors should be
continued.

Based on the study conducted in June 2008 by Cecilia PeLero in the Institute for
Popular Democracy year entitled Election Forensics The Effect of Socioeconomic
Characteristics on Voting Behavior in the Philippines, she concluded that age is another
recognized factor. In international voting literature, older people have consistently been
found to be more active politically, although there appears to be a slight drop-off in
activity among the very elderly. (Ulhaner) IPER found that older voters were more likely
to state that candidates should give money to voters while younger voters were more
likely to have hope for electoral reforms. As a matter of fact vote buying is also a factor
why voter turnout is low. Its either they are going to pay you to vote for them or not
simply go to polls during election time.

Department

According to the study of Avi Ben-Bassat and Momi Dahan (2012) entitled Social
Identity and Voting Behavior, it stated that the political behaviour of individuals is
affected by the degree of social attachment. Communities with stronger senses of social
attachment are more likely to participate in elections.

According to the study of S. K. Balogun, and P. O. Olapegba (2007) entitled

Majority Carry the Vote: Psycho-Demographic Influence on Voting Behaviour, it stated
that ethnicity, social class and media do not have influence over voting behaviour
probably because experiences of electorates over the years are such that oppression
and bad leadership do not have ethnic or class boundary, also, the fact that media
control and propaganda is a function of who has money to use them.

According to the study of Muhammad Shakeel Amad (2010) entitled Electoral

Politics in NWFP, it stated that during the study of electoral politics in NWFP (North
West Frontier Province), four major categories of voters were found, one of which is the
primary voter who voted for either ethnic identity or sectarian identity. Voter was bound
by considerations of local power structure in terms of caste, biradri (social groupings)
and tribe. Class is an important determinant of identifying the primary reasons while
others vote while some do not.
 In relationship with the study, the student voters voting preferences or behaviour
would be affected by the group they belong to which is their respective college
department.

Sex

In the study of S.K Balogun and P. O. Olapegba (2007) entitled Majority Carry
the vote Psycho-Demographic Influence on Voting Behaviour, it stated that age and
gender were found to have effect on voting behaviour. This simply implies that the age
and sex of both the electors and candidates may influence identification which may
ultimately influence voting decision. For instance, the wave of women empowerment
campaign and gender sensitivity may make younger women more disposed to voting for
a young woman who they perceive as one of their own and that will pursue their course.

According to the study of Jessica N. Grounds (2008) entitled Gender and Voting
Behaviour, it stated that women vote differently from men. Womens issues were
believed to revolved around domestic concerns such as healthcare, civil rights, and
education, while stereotypical male issues related to national security, economic and tax
issues. These associations affected the way candidates catered to male and female
voters and also affected the way voters perceived candidates abilities and strength. Male
voters consistently vote based on political ideology and with their geographic region,
while women tend to move more as a voting bloc. Women voters remain critical voting
constituency for political candidates and parties to attract during each election cycle.

In correlation to the study, the gender of student voters has an effect on their
voting behaviour or decision.

Profile of Voters and Non-voters

According to Prairie Research Associates (PRA) on the survey of voters and non-
voters held in Manitoba with regards to reasons for voting state that the most common
reason for voting as given by respondents, are philosophical. That is, they relate to the
perceived importance of voting itself. Respondents suggest that voting is a persons duty
or responsibility (20%), while others say that it is a right or privilege that, if not used,
will mean the end of democracy (23%). Still others state explicitly that voting is
important (10%). Others say that voting is a way of effecting change or getting a desired
outcome. Some suggest that they vote to support a candidate or party (11%), to pick the
government (9%), or to bring about change (7%). Others simply what to have a voice or
say in the election (11%). Many also mention that the act of voting gives them the right
to complain about the government, a right they feel does not extend to non-voters (10%).

According to Prairie Research Associates (PRA) on the survey of voters and non-
voters held in Manitoba with regards to reasons for not voting are the following: a.)
Distracted- Many non-voters identify reasons that may considered distractions in the
sense that they took their attention away from voting. Most commonly, non-voters told us
that they did not have time to vote because they were either too busy, hard to work
(14%), out of town (9%), or simply forgot (4%). Others were out of town (9%), ill (6%), or
report other things (1%) that kept them from voting on Election Day. b.) Disassociated-
Many other respondents provide reasons that suggest that they did not want to bother
voting. Some say they did not trust the candidates, did not like any choices , or generally
were disillusioned with politics (22%). Others say they did not care about the outcome
(8%) and did not know that who do vote for (6%). Similarly, some think it did not matter
who won the election (4%) because there is no real difference among the political
parties. Some (5%) say that they did not vote because they felt the outcome of the
election was already determined; in other words, their vote would make no difference
(2%). c.) Displaced- Only a few respondents mention reasons that might be considered
administrative or technical. Some say they did not vote because they were not on the
voters list or did not have the identification (4%), the voting locations were too far away
(3%- which may be more an issue of time that of location), the voting locations closed
too early (1%), or they did not know where to vote (2%).

In correlation with the study, the reason of voting and not voting will be a factor in
determining the voter turnout of elections.

Hypothesis

There is no significant difference in the reasons of voting or non-voting when grouped

according to the profile variables.

Research Paradigm

Independent Variable Dependent Variable

Profile of the
Respondents
Reasons for
o Department Voting and Not
o Sex Voting
o Year Level

Figure 1.0 Paradigm of the Study

Figure 1.0 shows the variables that will be used in the study. The profile of the
respondents and the reasons for voting and not voting are the independent variable and
how it affects the dependent variable which is the voter turnout.

Methods

In this chapter, the research design, locale of the study, respondents and
sampling procedure, the instruments, the data gathering procedure, as well as the
statistical tools that is used will be described.
Design

The researchers used the Descriptive-Survey Method. A descriptive survey was

selected because it provides an accurate portrayal or account of the characteristics, for
example, the year level, sex and department of the respondents. This design was
chosen to meet the objectives of the study, namely to determine the reasons why the
respondents vote while others do not and how it affects the voter turnout.

Locale of the Study

The study was conducted at the University of Saint Louis Tuguegarao City,
Cagayan. It was chosen as the locale of the study because the data given by the Dean
of Student Affairs showed that there were many students who did not exercise their right
to vote during the previous SSC election that resulted to low voter turnout.

Respondents and Sampling Procedure

The respondents were the 377 Louisian students from the different department
namely School of Business Administration and Accountancy, School of Engineering and
Interior Design, School of Education Arts and Sciences, School of Hospitality and
Vocational Education, School of Health and Allied Sciences and School of Information
and Computing Sciences. The respondents are identified based on the data provided by
the Guidance Counsellors Office on the population of each department. Stratified
Random Sampling was utilized.

Research Instrument and other Resources of Data

Non-normative questionnaire was used as a data collection instrument. The

questionnaire will allow the respondents to provide information about their year level, sex
and department. It is a 16-item questionnaire both for the voters and non-voters
formulated by the researcher themselves and based on Prairie Research Associates
(PRA) in their study Voter Turnout in the 2011 Provincial Election: A survey of Voters
and Non-voters. The questionnaire is divided into three parts for each of the voters and
non-voters: a.) Reasons for Voting or Not Voting, b.) Factors that would encourage non-
voters to vote and c.) Importance of Voting. It was validated by Political Science
Professors namely, Mr. Bernardo Guillermo, Mr. Jason Elizaga and Mr. Robert Dy. The
questionnaire will help identify what are the primary reasons why some students vote
while others do not that affects voter turnout in SSC elections.

Data Analysis

The following statistical tools was used to analyze the results of the study:

Frequency and percentage was used to tabulate the profile of the respondents.
The frequency count reports the number of observations or occurrences of a variable,
while the percentage illustrates its proportions.
 Weighted Mean was used to analyze the answers of the respondents why they
chose to vote or not to vote.

The t-test was used to find out if there is a significant difference in the reasons for
voting or not voting when grouped according to sex. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was
used to determine if there is a significant difference in the reason for voting or not voting
when grouped according to year level and department.

The five point Likert scale used the following rating to determine the descriptive
value.
Legend:

4.50 5.00 Very likely 1.50 2.49 Unlikely

3.50 4.49 Likely 1.00 1.49 Very Unlikely
2.50 3.49 Neutral

Results

Table 1. Total Population Size

RESPONDENTS FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE

Voters 232 61.54
Non-voters 145 38.46
Total 377 100

The table shows that there are more Voter respondents compared to Non-voter
respondents with a frequency of 232 which is equivalent to 61.54% of the total
population size, while the non-voter respondents have only 145 respondents which is
equivalent to 38.46%.

Table 2. Profile of the Respondents

CRITERIA VOTERS NON-VOTERS

Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage
SEX
Female 153 65.95 79 54.48
Male 79 34.05 66 45.52
Total 232 100 145 100
DEPARTMENT
SBAA 77 33.19 47 32.41
SEAID 57 24.57 60 41.38
SEAS 36 15.52 17 11.72
SHAS 14 6.03 12 8.28
SHVED 31 13.36 7 4.83
SICS 17 7.33 2 1.38
Total 232 100 145 100
YEAR LEVEL
5TH Year 7 3.02 19 13.10
4th Year 55 23.71 45 31.03
3rd Year 62 26.72 41 28.28
2nd Year 43 18.53 11 7.59
1st Year 65 28.02 29 20
Total 232 100 232 100

Table 2 shows that females are more inclined to vote than men having 153
respondents equivalent to 65.95%. Even for non-voters, female have the greatest
number of respondents with a number of 79 which accounts to 54.48% of the non-voting
population. Moreover, as to the department, for voters, School of Business
Administration and Accountancy (SBAA) department have the highest vote with a
frequency of 77 which is equivalent to 33.19% while the least one which is School Of
Health and Allied Sciences (SHAS) department garnered only a frequency of 14 which is
equivalent to 6.03%. For the non-voters, respondents coming from School of
Engineering and Interior Design (SEAID) department have the highest percentage while
the least number of non-voters came from School of Information and Computing
Sciences (SICS) department, with a percentage of 1.38%. Furthermore, First year
students are more politically aware than higher years with a percentage of 28.02%. For
the non-voters the fourth year students have the highest percentage with a frequency of
45 that is equivalent to 31.03%.

Table 3. Mean of the Analysis of the Reasons of Voting

REASONS FOR VOTING MEAN DESCRIPTIVE

VALUE
1. It is my right, responsibility and duty as a student. 4.69 Very likely
2. I like the personal characteristics of the candidates. 3.71 Likely
3. I have a candidate to support. 3.59 Likely
4. The candidates are very popular in the university. 2.98 Neutral
5. I am just following/persuaded by others. 2.94 Neutral
6. I like their platforms 3.64 Likely
7. The candidates have good looks. 2.75 Neutral
8. I am generally interested in student politics. 3.55 Likely
9. It is easier to vote through the automated voting 4.18 Likely
process.
10. I just wanted to. 3.57 Likely

The table shows that with a mean of 4.69 the main reason why voters voted is
because it is their right, responsibility and duty as a student. The second main reason is
that it is easier to vote through the automated voting process with a mean of 4.18. The
third main reason is that they like the personal characteristics of the candidate with a
mean of 3.71.

Table 4. Mean of the Analysis of the Reasons of not voting

REASONS FOR NOT VOTING MEAN DESCRIPTIVE

VALUE
1. I was not well informed about the parties and the 3.48 Neutral
candidates.
2. I do not like any of the candidates. 2.50 Neutral
3. I was busy/ I do not have time. 3.97 Likely
4. The line was too long 3.80 Likely
5. I was not aware about the election. 2.54 Neutral
6. I do not know who to vote. 2.68 Neutral
7. I do not like their platforms. 2.58 Neutral
8. I am not interested. 2.44 Unlikely
9. The time is not enough to accommodate all the student 3.81 Likely
voters.
10. I do not care at all. 2.15 Unlikely

The table shows that the main reason why students did not vote is that they do
not have time with a mean of 3.97. Next is that the time is not enough to accommodate
all the student voters with a mean of 3.81. Another is that the line is too long with a mean
of 3.80.

Table 5. Mean of the Factors that would encourage non-voters to vote

FACTORS THAT WOULD VOTERS NON-VOTERS

ENCOURAGE NON-VOTERS TO VOTE
MEAN DESCRIPTIVE MEAN DESCRIPTIVE
VALUE VALUE
1. Having greater trust/confidence in 4.25 Agree 4.34 Likely
candidates.
2. Platforms that directly benefit the 4.25 Agree 4.40 Likely
students.
3. More information about the 4.08 Agree 4.31 Likely
candidates/issues.
4. Election to be conducted on a 4.26 Agree 4.48 Likely
more convenient day.
5. More information on when/where 4.26 Agree 4.37 Likely
election will be.

Table 5 presents that in view of the voters the top factors that would encourage
voters to vote is that election to be conducted on a more convenient day and more
information on when/where election will be with a mean of 4.26. Another is that having
greater trust/confidence in candidates and platforms that directly benefit the students
with a mean of 4.25. Moreover, as to the non-voters perception the primary factors that
would encourage non-voters to vote is that election to be conducted on a more
convenient day with a mean of 4.48 and platforms that directly benefit the students with
a mean of 4.40.

Table 6. Importance of Voting according to the Voters Perception

IMPORTANCE OF VOTERS NON-VOTERS

VOTING
FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE
Very important 171 73.71 82 56.55
Somewhat important 59 25.43 57 39.31
Not very important 2 0.86 4 2.76
Not at all important 0 0 2 1.38
Total 232 100 145 100

Table 6 shows that majority of the voters and non-voters perception when it
comes to the importance of voting is that it is very important with a percentage of
73.71% for voters while 56.55% for non-voters.

Table 7. Significant Difference on the primary reasons why voters chose to vote
or not to vote when grouped according to Sex

Gender Number of Mean F value P value Decision

Voters Respondents
Male 79 3.57 0.274 0.601 Accept
Female 153 3.56 Ho

Gender Number of Mean F value P value Decision

Non- Respondents
voters Male 66 3.12 5.039 0.026 Reject
Female 79 2.88 Ho

The table 7 presents the T-test Analysis on the primary reasons why some
students vote while others do not when grouped according to Gender. For voters, there
is no significant difference and this is supported by the probability value of 0.601 which is
higher than 0.05 level of significance. Hence, the null hypothesis is accepted. For the
non-voters there is a significant difference and is supported by the probability value of
0.026 which is lower than 0.05 level of significance. Thus, the null hypothesis is rejected.

Table 8. Significant Difference on the primary reasons why voters chose to vote or
not to vote when grouped according to Year Level

Year Number of Mean F value P value Decision

Level Respondents
5 7 3.51
Voters 4 55 3.61 Accept
3 62 3.63 0.949 0.540 Ho
2 43 3.40
1 65 3.57

Year Number of Mean F value P value Decision

Level Respondents
Non- 5 19 3.39
voters 4 45 2.82 Accept
3 41 2.87 1.139 0.306 Ho
2 11 3.36
 1 29 3.04

The table shows that there is no significant difference for the voters and non-
voters when grouped according to year level. This is supported by the probability value
of voters which is 0.540 while for the non-voters it is 0.306 that is higher than 0.05 level
of significance. Hence, the null hypothesis is accepted.

Table 9. Significant Difference on the primary reasons why voters chose to vote or
not to vote when grouped according to Department

Department Number of Mean F value P value Decision

Respondents
SBAA 77 3.59
Voters SEAID 57 3.53
SEAS 36 3.46 0.883 0.632 Accept
SHAS 14 3.49 Ho
SHVED 31 3.72
SICS 17 3.50

Department Number of Mean F value P value Decision

Respondents
SBAA 47 2.67
Non- SEAID 60 3.26
voters SEAS 17 2.84 4.597 0.001 Reject
SHAS 12 3.18 Ho
SHVED 7 2.90
SICS 2 3.30

The table presents the Analysis of Variance on the reasons for voting or not
voting when grouped according to department. For the voters, there is no significant
difference which is supported by the probability value of 0.632 which is higher than 0.05
level of significance. Therefore, the null hypothesis is accepted. However, for the non-
voters there is a significant difference which is supported by the probability value of 0.01
which is lower than 0.05 level of significance. Hence, the null hypothesis is rejected.

Table 10. Significant Difference on the primary reasons why voters chose to vote
or not to vote when grouped according to voters and non-voters

Number of Mean F value P value Decision

Respondents
Voters 232 3.56 19.558 0.000 Reject
Non-voters 145 2.99 Ho

The table shows that for voters and non-voters there is a significant difference in
their reasons for voting and not voting which is supported by the probability of 0.000
which is lower than 0.05 level of significance.

Discussion
 This study aimed to determine the primary reasons why students chose to vote
or not to vote in the SSC election.

The results showed that the main reasons why voters chose to vote is that voting
is their right, responsibility and duty as a student and because it is easier to vote through
the automated voting process. According to Tyllstrom (2012) an idea can be that it is a
good thing to vote since the norm in society encourages it and because that society is
also likely to send out the message that its in every citizens interest to vote in order to
show support of and improve the democracy in the country in the form of a high voter
turnout. This is supported by the Prairie Research Associates in their study Voter
turnout in the 2011 Provincial Election: A survey of Voters and Non-voters which found
out the most common reason why voters vote is that voting is a persons duty or
responsibility.

The result of this study also suggests that the main reason why students did not
vote is because they are busy or they do not have time and that the time is not enough
to accommodate all the student voters. The same study by the Prairie Research Institute
(2011) also support this result. Many of the respondents in the said study answered that
that they did not have time to vote because they were too busy. Many of these reasons
are just another way of saying that voting was not a priority, compared to other activities.

According to the voters, to be able to encourage non-voters to vote, election

should be conducted on a more convenient day and more information on when or where
election will be. The non-voters have the same answer as to what would encourage
them to vote.

Regardless whether they voted or not, most of the respondents believe that
voting is very important. While 73.71 of the voters answered that voting is very
important, 56.55% of the non-voters said the same thing. Only 2 non-voters which is
equivalent to only 1.38% answered that voting is not at all important. For many, the
importance of voting is in the result or the outcome. It is through voting that voices can
be heard or that is about having a say in how things are done. Voting is the only way to
change things and make a difference, or more simply, to choose a candidate. For others,
the importance of voting is less about the outcomes and more about the act of voting
itself. Voters are more likely than non-voters to say that voting is about exercising a right;
it is a privilege that must be used. More simply, the system is said not to work if people
do not vote, as such, it is not only important, it is everyones duty. (PRA, 2012)

The results revealed that when grouped according to sex, female voters and
male voters have no significant difference in their reasons for voting. This is supported
by the study of Norris et al (2004) which reports that gender is not significantly related to
the overall summary of the total number of political actions taken by citizens. On the
other hand, for non-voters, there is a significant difference when grouped according to
sex. In the research report of the UK Electoral Commission (2004), the study reported
some differences in the reasons given by women and men for not voting. It suggests that
women were more likely not to vote because of lack of interest, whereas men were
slightly more likely not to vote because they believed that there was no real democracy
or their preferred party had changed since the previous election.

The results further exhibited that there is no significant difference in the reasons
for voting or not voting when respondents are grouped according to Year Level. This can
be attributed to the fact that there is not much difference in the ages of the respondents.
 The results showed that when voters are grouped according to Department,
there is no significant difference. However, for non-voters, there is a significant difference
when they are grouped according to department. According to the study of Muhammad
Shakeel Amad (2010) entitled Electoral Politics in NWFP, it stated that during the study
of electoral politics in NWFP (North West Frontier Province), four major categories of
voters were found, one of which is the primary voter who voted for either ethnic identity
or sectarian identity. Voter was bound by considerations of local power structure in terms
of caste, biradrism (social groupings) and tribe. Class is an important determinant of
identifying the primary reasons why voters vote. For the SEAID and SICS who got the
highest mean for non-voters, the fact that they did not vote can be attributed to the
reason that they do not have a candidate to support coming from their respective
department. In relationship with the study, the students reason for not voting would be
affected by the group they belong to which is their respective college department.

When students are grouped according to whether they voted or they did not,
there is a significant difference for their reasons for voting or not voting. The results of
our study with regards to the reasons for voting or not voting is strongly supported by the
Prairie Research Institute(2011) already mentioned above. It suggests that voters
independently provide two broad reasons for voting: the importance of the act of voting
itself and the outcome of voting. The most common reasons for voting, as given by
respondents, are philosophical. That is, they relate to the perceived importance of voting
itself. Some respondents suggest that voting is a persons duty or responsibility , while
others say that it is a right or privilege that if not used, will mean the end of
democracy. It further suggests that the reasons provided by non-voters for not casting a
ballot in 2011 fall into three broad categories: distraction, that is, reasons that suggest
that they intended to vote but were either too busy or had to work; disassociation, that is,
reasons that suggest that they did not intend to vote because they did not trust the
candidates and displacement, that is, reasons that suggest that they wanted to vote but
technical or administrative issues barred them.

Conclusion

The student-voters of the University of Saint Louis Tuguegarao identified the

reasons why they voted or did not during the previous SSC elections by answering the
questionnaires. The result shows that the top three (3) reasons why the voters voted are
the following: a.) it is their right, responsibility and duty as a student, b.) It is easier to
vote through the automated voting process and c.) They like the personal characteristics
of the candidate. For the non-voters reasons why they did not vote, the primary reasons
are the following: a.) They do not have time, b.) The time is not enough to accommodate
all the student voters and c.) The line is too long.

The research showed that there are more voter respondents compared to non-
voter respondents. When it comes to sex, females are more politically aware than males.
Moreover, the students from SBAA show that they are actively participating during SSC
elections having the highest vote while the SHAS department serves as the lowest.
Furthermore, the freshmen students are more politically aware than the higher years.
These factors affect the voter turnout of the election which is proved to be low because
not more than the majority voted during the previous election.
 On the primary reasons why some students vote while others do not when
grouped according to gender, for voters, there is no significant difference. For the non-
voters there is a significant difference. When grouped according to year level it showed
that there is no significant difference for the voters and non-voters. When grouped
according to department for the voters there is no significant difference while for the non-
voters there is a significant difference. When grouped according to voters and non-
voters the result showed that there is a significant difference.

Accordingly, the voters and non-voters have the same perception when it comes
to encouraging non-voters to vote that is, election to be conducted on a more
convenient day. Overall, with regards to their view of the importance of voting majority of
both the voters and non-voters responded that voting is very important.

Recommendation

As shown in the results the researchers therefore recommend the following :

For the University of Saint Louis Tuguegarao, they must conduct seminars with
regards to the importance of voting in Student Supreme Council so that they will greatly
encourage the students to vote and to let them know the essence of voting and effects of
student school election in their college life. Moreover, when it comes to the manner of
election, the university must conduct it in a more convenient day and a longer period of
voting hence, longer campaign period would also be implemented. The DSA must inform
the students as early as possible on when and where the election must be conducted in
order for them to prepare and find a vacant time on the day of the election. In other
words, they should orient well the student voters. Furthermore, they must find a larger
voting area that will accommodate all the voters. Increasing of the equipment and
facilities for voting is also highly recommended.

For the SSC officers, they should implement programs like a debate of the
platform of both parties to inform the students of their ideologies before election.

For the student SSC candidates, they should make use of their allotted time
wisely to campaign in order for them to inform the students of their platforms that would
encourage students to vote for them. This in turn will greatly help in increasing the voter
turnout here in the university.

For the voters, they should be wise in choosing whom to vote especially that the
SSC is an organization that will govern the studentry. As to the non-voters, they must
exercise their right to suffrage, because voting in itself is a matter of right.
References:

Ayson, F. G. & Reyes, D. A. (2000) Fundamentals of Political Science Published by

National Book Store, Philippine Copyright, 1993, 2000

In text reference: (Ayson & Reyes 2000)

Blais, A. & Young,R.(1999), Why do people vote? An experiment in rationality,

Published by Public Choice p.6

In text reference: (Blais & Young 1999)

Block, C., Larrive, D. & Warner S. (2011) Estimation of Voter Turnout by Age Group
and Gender at the 2011 Federal General Election

In text reference: (Block & Warner 2011)

Geys, B. (2006) Rational Theories of Voter Turnout: A review, Political Studies Review:
2006 Vol. 4, 16-35

In text reference: (Geys, 2006)

Hoffman-Martinot, V. (1994) Voter turnout in French municipal elections. In: Lopez-

Nieto, L. (Ed.), Local Elections in Europe, Institut de cie`ncespolitiques I socials,
Barcelona, pp. 13e42

In text reference: (Hoffman-Martinot, 1994)

Kirchgssner G. (2003) Abstention Because of Indifference and Alienation and Its

Consequences for Party Competition: A Simple Psychological Model, University
of St. Gallen Economics Discussion Paper, 2003-12

In text reference: (Kirchgssner, 2003)

Ladner,A. and Milner, H. (1999) Do Voters Turn Out More Under Proportional than
Majoritarian Systems? The Evidence from Swiss Communal Elections, Electoral
Studies, 18, 23550.

In text reference: (Ladner and Milner, 1999)

Lijphart, A. (1997) Unequal Participation: Democracys Unresolved Dilemma, American

Political Science Review, 91, 1-14

In text reference: (Lijphart, 1997)

Matsusaka, J. G. (1995) Explaining Voter Turnout Patterns: An Information Theory,

Public Choice, 84, 91117
In text reference: (Matsukaka, 1995)

Mueller, D.C., 2003 The institutional and political factors that influence voter turnout,
University Press, Cambridge Public Choice 77, 657e667

In text reference: (Mueller, 2003)

Nonprofitvote.org(2012), America Goes to the Polls from the website ww.nonprofit.org

Norris, P., Lovenduski, J.& Campbell Nature of Men and Womens Political
Participation, From elections on Canada website

Owen, G. &Grofman, B., 1984, To vote or not to vote: the paradox on nonvoting, Public
Choice 42, 311e325

Pattie, C. &Johnston, R. (1998) Voter turnout at the British General Election of 1992:
Rational choice, social standing or political efficacy?,European Journal of Political
Research 33: 263283, 1998

PeLero, C.& IPERs study (2008) Election Forensics-The Effect ofSocioeconomic

Characteristics on Voting Behavior in the Philippines http://www.foxitsoftware.com

Powell, B. G Jr. (1982)Contemporary Democracies: Participation, Stability and

Violence, Harvard University Press p. A7

Reif, K. & Schmitt, H. (1980) Nine Second Order National Elections: A conceptual
Framework for the Analysis of European Election Results, European Journal of Political
Research, 8, 3-44

Riker,W.H. and Ordeshook, P.C. (1968) A Theory of the Calculus of Voting, American
Political Science Review, 62, 2542.

Charles Prysby and Carmine Scavo (2008) Analyzing Voters Behavior

Prairie Research Associates 2011 Voter turnout in the 2011 Provincial Election: A survey
of Voters and Non-voters, admin@pra.ca www.pra.ca

Avi Ben-Bassat and Momi Dahan (2012), Social Identity and Voting Behavior

S. K. Balogun, and P. O. Olapegba (2007), Majority Carry the Vote: Psycho-

Demographic Influence on Voting Behaviour,

Muhammad Shakeel Amad (2010), Electoral Politics in NWFP,

S.K Balogun and P. O. Olapegba (2007), Majority Carry the vote Psycho-Demographic
Influence on Voting Behaviour

Jessica N. Grounds (2008), Gender and Voting Behaviour