Results and Discussion

The present study was to examine the voting behavior and preferences of first time voters

in Barangay Libertad, Butuan City. As stated in the previous chapter, the researchers selected a

sample of 117 respondents. In line with this, a survey questionnaire was carried out that was used

to collect data for the study. This survey questionnaire comprised following the order in the

statement of the problem. The results obtained were put through statistical analysis through the

help of a statistician and are presented in this chapter.

I. The profile of the respondents in terms of socioeconomic status.

4
24

Elementary Graduate
High School Graduate
College Graduate

89

Figure 2. Highest Educational Attainment Distribution.

The figure – 2 above shows the distribution of the sample according to their education.

Out of 117 respondents, there are 4 elementary graduates, 89 High School graduates, and 25
college graduates. This clearly shows that most of the first time voters in barangay Libertad are

high school graduates.

Employed
Unemployed

109

Figure 3. Employment Status Distribution.

The figure – 3 shows that the participants were mostly unemployed with a total of 109

since figure – 2 above shows that first time voters are high school, more likely they are in college

level. There were 8 participants who are employed to different occupation namely: secretary,

STL, service crew, vendor, mechanic, pharmacist, cashier, and a clerk, with an average monthly

salary of ₱ 8,750.00.

II. The preferences of the first time voters in choosing political candidates.
 60

49
50

40

30

20 16 16
12 13

10 7
4

0
Not Least Fairly Important Moderately Very Strongly
important important Important Important Important Important

Figure 4. Amount of money (Vote buying) sample distribution.

The figure – 4 above shows that the amount of money of the candidates specifically vote

buying is not important to most of the respondents with a number of 49 out of 117, while the

smallest number of respondents answered moderately important.

30

25
25 23

20 19
16
15
15 14

10

5
5

0
Not Least Fairly Important Moderately Very Strongly
important important Important Important Important Important

Figure 5. Quality of the proposed projects (Platforms) sample distribution.

 The figure – 5 above shows that the quality of the proposed projects or platforms is very

important to most of the respondents with a number of 25, which is just close to respondents who

answered least important, with a number of 23 out of 117.

30
27

25
22
20
20 18
17

15

10 9

5 4

0
Not Least Fairly Important Moderately Very Strongly
important important Important Important Important Important

Figure 6. Personally Known (Popularity) sample distribution.

As shown in Figure – 6 above, the greatest quantity of the respondents (27) answered

fairly important in terms of popularity of the candidates while the lowest quantity of respondents

answered not important.

 35

29
30 28

25

20 18
15
14
15

10 8
5
5

0
Not Least Fairly Important Moderately Very Strongly
important important Important Important Important Important

Figure 7. Good speaker (Communication Skill) sample distribution.

As shown in Figure – 7 above, in terms of being a good speaker of the candidate is

important to 29 respondents close to 28 who answered very important. This means that they

prefer candidates with good communication skills.

40 37

35

30
24
25
20
20 18

15
10
10
4 4
5

0
Not Least Fairly Important Moderately Very Strongly
important important Important Important Important Important

Figure 8. Good personally background (Character) sample distribution.

 The Figure – 8 above shows that the majority of the respondents with a total number of

37 among 117 participants answered moderately important in terms of the character of a

particular candidate.

30
27
26
25 23

20

15 13
12

10 8 8

0
Not Least Fairly Important Moderately Very Strongly
important important Important Important Important Important

Figure 9. Religious Affiliation sample distribution.

The Figure – 9 above shows that the majority of the respondents with a total number of

27 among 117 participants answered least important, followed by 26 respondents who answered

not important in terms of their religious affiliation and does it affect their preferences in voting

candidates, however it depicts the opposite for the majority.

 35
32

30
25
25

20 18

14
15
12
10
10
6
5

0
Not Least Fairly Important Moderately Very Strongly
important important Important Important Important Important

Figure 10. Family choice/affinity sample distribution.

As shown in figure - 10 above, most of the respondents (32) answered least important,

followed by 25 participants who answered not important. This means that majority of the first

time voters in Barangay Libertad, family choice does not affect their preferences in voting a

candidate.

6.00
4.98
5.00 4.43 4.60
4.26
4.00 3.62
2.97 3.14
3.00

2.00

1.00

0.00
 Figure 11. Mean distribution of the preferences of the first time voters in choosing political

candidates.

As shown in the figure-11 above and based on table 2 in the previous chapter, the average of A.

Amount of money is 2.97 means that it is fairly important in the verbal description, B. Platforms

is 4.26 means that it is important, C. Popularity is 4.43 means that it is important, D.

Communications Skills is 4.60 means that it is moderately important, E. Character 4.98 means that

it is moderately important, F. Religion Affiliation 3.62 means that it is important, and lastly is G.

Family Choice/ Affinity is 3.14 means that it is fairly important.

III. Is there a significant difference in the voters’ preferences when grouped according to

socioeconomic status?

a. When grouped according to highest educational attainment.

Table 3. Mean distribution by highest educational attainment.

Elementary High School College

5.25 3.05 2.29
5.25 4.24 4.21
5.25 4.47 4.13
3.25 4.72 4.38
4.00 5.00 5.08
3.25 3.44 4.38
1.75 3.09 3.54

Table 4.

Null Hypothesis Test Statistic Decision Rule p-Value Conclusion

There is no Analysis of Since F tab is
If F tabular ≥ F F tab = -1.65e-
significant Variance less than F
critical, or p- 15
difference in the (ANOVA) Single crit, that is -
Value ≤ 0.05, F crit = 3.5546
voter’s preference Factor 1.65e-15 is
 when group then reject null less than
according to hypothesis. 3.5546, then
highest we failed to
educational reject null
attainment. hypothesis.
Thus, there is
no significant
difference in
the voter’s
preference
when group
according to
highest
educational
attainment.

The researcher failed to reject null hypothesis.

b. When grouped according to employment status.

Table 5. Mean distribution by employment status.

Employed Unemployed
2.88 2.97
4.75 4.23
4.00 4.46
3.38 4.69
5.00 4.98
4.50 3.56
3.38 3.12

Table 6.

Null Hypothesis Test Statistic Decision Rule p-Value Conclusion

There is no Since p-
significant Value is
If F tabular ≥ F
difference in the Analysis of greater than
critical, or p- 0.9648
voter’s preference Variance 0.05, that is
Value ≤ 0.05, (F tab = 0.002,
when group (ANOVA) Single 0.9648 is
then reject null F crit = 4.7472)
according to Factor greater than
hypothesis.
employment 0.05, then we
status. failed to reject
 null
hypothesis.
Thus, there is
no significant
difference in
the voter’s
preference
when group
according to
employment
status.

The researcher failed to reject null hypothesis.