Good evening. I am Ab, my pronouns are she and her, nd I firmly believe that political dynasties are detrimental to democracy. You see, they replace the sole merit based structure we have, here specifically in the Philippines, the constitution that we so as call. By definition, democracy is an institutional system. It's designed to precisely dismantle heredity and ensure that public office is a public trust accessible to all. Therefore, the existence of a political dynasty within a democratic framework is a structural paradox. It represents the re-emergence of an aristocracy operating under the veneer of an election. When the power itself is concentrated solely within familiar lineages, it deconstructs what democracy is supposed to be. In general, we must know how to vote for ourselves. We must know how to vote for in general. Because being in a family with certain leaders, with the people who are now currently sitting in the line, doesn't automatically imply that anyone in their family lineage are capable of leading as wwll. You may be capable of leading, but your children isn't assured of it. So as the generations go by. Therefore, I believe that political dynasties are bad for democracy.

You claim that because nobody is forcing the voter at gunpoint, the vote is entirely free. They confuse a lack of physical force with the presence of genuine democratic freedom. But let us actually define what choice is. Because choice requires not just the freedom to pick, but a viable competitive menu of alternatives. If, for example, a grocery store burns down every competing brand until one remains on the shelf, you are not choosing the brand out of trust because you are buying it out of necessity. When dynasties monopolize campaign finance, local media, and state resources, they burn down the alternatives. The voter is in force, but the voter is concerned. Choosing the only surviving option on the rigged menu is not a reflection of democratic health. It's the illusion of the consent itself.

You have exactly admitted that dynasties hold an overwhelming monopoly over money, media, and resources. Yet your defense is simply because of the people picking. But let us once again define what a choice is. It's a choice in a civilized democracy is not merely the physical act of dropping a ballot. If a cartel forces a local market to burn every competing brand until only one remains on the shelf, you do not look at the consumers buying and say, look, democracy is working, the people are picking. No, they are buying it out of absolute necessity. Knowing that the other names on the piece of paper is completely meaningless if those names have been systematically starved of the resources the media access and the political infrastructure required to compete. What the opposition is defending is not a voter severity. They are defending the illusion on a completely rigged menu. You're confusing trust with actual survival. When a single family controls local jobs, healthcare, and governmental aid, plastering their name on every public service a vote for that family is an act of and the most famous surname it ceases to be a democracy and becomes a corporate marketing contest. To argue that people are picking the most famous name is to celebrate a system where the richest brand always wins. That is oligarchy and not democracy. The fundamental purpose of democracy is to ensure that power belongs to the public and not to the dynasty. We are not here to ban the people. We are here to ban the monopolies. Just as we antitrust laws to break up corporate monopolies to save the free market, it is time for us to dismantle the political dynasties to save the free market of democracy. If you believe that democracy belongs to the people and not to a few ruling midlines, you must vote affirmative. An election without a level playing field is not a choice. It's a coronation. A democracy was invented to end those coronations. And with that, I rest this case.

I never said that we have to vote for a stranger. My point here is we don't have to automatically vote for the people who have a familiar surname. It doesn't mean that we know who those people They are automatically good leaders already. Because democracy, by the word democracy, we have to pick. The people have to pick for who we truly pick. For who we want to represent our country. And if we're solely going to be biased and pick these familiar leaders in a family lineage, it all ends up into corrupted monopolies. To take it to one example, look at what's happening to the Philippines right now with Sara Duterte and Monk Monk Marcos. Is there leadership enough for us Filipinos? It's not. Many Filipinos are fighting for that.