On Why I will Vote for the Least Evil and Winnable Candidate in May 2010

I have posted before that Filipino politicians are usually not labeled like how their foreign counterparts are classified, i.e. whether they are liberal, conservative, moderate, left, center, right, red, blue, green, fascist, feminist, communist, socialist, Islamist, libertarian, nationalist, conservationist, etc. Even the padrino (patron) of the politician cannot sufficiently describe him since he can easily disown his padrino. Political parties on the other hand are more personality based rather than platform/issue based. A political party is created whenever a politician cannot get the endorsement of his previous party (since the selection of candidates is not done through primaries but through political maneuvering) and parties are merged to combine resources for a stronger election campaign machinery. Hence, politicians switch parties and their allegiance whenever they see an opportunity and for their political survival. There is only one word to describe local politicians, trapo (traditional politician). Even some of the cause-oriented politicians are now starting to adorn the trappings of a trapo. Even though the methodologies and accuracy of surveys are criticized, surveys remain the only tool that allows voters to see a snapshot of how the population will vote and to change their preference to vote for the least evil among the race leaders. My justifications for voting for the least evil among the winnable presidential candidates are the following:

• The political party system is not strong and parties are not platform/issue based but personality based. There is no incentive to vote for a candidate who is espousing/advocating certain issues but will eventually lose since the votes the candidate will garner will not be viewed as votes for those issues but will be viewed as votes for that candidate.  The votes for Perlas will not make elected officials realize that a sector of the population support green politics and in turn support it. The votes for Gordon will not transform the hearts of the victors of May 2010. Only the winning President can change the tune of the national government and resonate this tune down to the local government units. It is only in a parliamentary system that voting for a party that has no chance of getting majority seats will reap benefits. Votes for these parties correspond to seats for MPs who will forward in their respective houses the agenda and platforms of their respective parties.
• The presidential election is only one round. There is no runoff. So our votes will have maximum effect on the outcome of the election if we will vote for the least evil among the winnable candidates.
• Even if "good" local officials are elected, their efforts for change and  for their agenda will be limited to their domains. These efforts can even be hampered by an adversarial national government. The vote of a "good" lower house representative can be diluted by the vote of the majority bloc which normally aligns with the tenant of Malacañang. An opposition dominated Senate cannot transmit bills to the President without the concurrence of the normally pro-administration lower house.

I may have forgotten other justifications that I have thought of but I will post it here the moment I remember them. Also, my justifications may be flawed so I want to hear your rebuttals.

Aside: I will certainly vote for Mar Roxas. This is not because of my dislike for Loren Legarda (who is a political butterfly, she criticized Villar for the C5 double insertion issue but now runs in his ticket). I have also pointed out issues regarding Mar Roxas before. However, I will vote for Roxas because he has done what politicians never do these days, i.e. to give way for the best interest of the party.