Roy Tang

I think the mandate by which the president wins matters, which means abstention matters, since it informs the strength of the president’s mandate.

One of the reasons PNoy was able to push through many of his initiatives early on during the presidency was that he was elected with a relatively strong 42% mandate. A president elected with a relatively weaker mandate (say, 25-30%) will have a much tougher time with controversial issues and will be facing a much more independent senate (many of whom will be elected by more voters than the president)

The strength of the mandate even affects those who don’t win - Erap placed second in 2010 showing himself to still be a strong political force which leads to his still being influential today

The comparison to the US low voter turnout is interesting, since the voter turnout for their primaries this year is significantly higher compared to 2012 mainly because both parties have significant anti-establishment candidates (Sanders for the Dems, Trump for the Reps) which would lead one to believe that their historically low voter turnout is precisely due to a lack of good candidates, an opportunity which Sanders and Trump can potentially take advantage of. That is the same message that a significantly large abstention (although unlikely) could send - not saying it will, but it’s a possibility.

I’m not saying abstention is some magic thing that will send a message (although it’s a possibility if enough people do so), but that people shouldn’t be ashamed to abstain if they don’t find the options palatable. Even if your reason is something as simple as “I can’t decide”, that’s fine, your abstention still has meaning since it indicates that you consider none of the candidates outstanding enough to support