The Biblical story of David fascinates and edifies us to this day.

It is relevant especially during elections - where like our daily struggles - it is actually a permanent battle between good and evil. With the recent Easter message of redemption, our elections should not be a war between political parties, between personalities, between performance and promises, between incumbents and challengers, between oldies and the new challengers.

In battle, Goliath of the Philistines, stood at 9 feet and 9 inches, wearing a 125-pound armor and wearing a face that his own mother disowned as he roared with a growl that shook the seven hills and sowed terror among the Israelites.

His shining armor bore the initial "G" for Goliath was born in the district of Gaza - and had challenged the best Israelite warrior - one on one - and settle the war in the open battlefield for all to witness.

The Israelite army had no takes except a skinny shepherd boy with the name of David - who took five smooth stones from the river bank and put them inside his leather sling bag to battle the giant. He had nothing but faith in God and logic as he confronted the giant Goliath who almost died laughing at the puny figure in this obvious mismatch.

David said Goliath has to pay for defying the God of Israel and David had armies with him - referring to the angels who had been his guardians and strength. Likewise, Goliath sneered: "Ha, I am so big, I can crush you like a fly with my shield, sword and javelin." David just softly retorted: "Yes, you are so big, I cannot miss" and sent a hurtling stone - 250 rpm - from his sling-shot straight in between the eyes of Goliath, who spun from the impact and crashed to the ground.

David took Goliath's sword from the scabbard and cut his head off his neck that sent the Philistines scampering in terror. The rest is history.

An analogy is apropos to the electoral battle - not just in Bohol - but in many provinces nationwide. There are three kinds of Goliaths lording over the political landscape with wealth, influence and political lieutenants (network).

The first batch is the so-called reelectionists. In Bohol 31 of the 46 town mayors, 29 vice-mayors, a governor, three congressmen and one congressman (sending his son as proxy) are running for reelection. Regardless of three of six years of incumbency, the electorate should discern whether the public deserves them for another three years.

One criterion for evaluation is (a) what they have done during their term and (b) how they compare to their predecessors.

But the more important criterion should be: whether these "achievements" have been done without the social cost of corruption and erosion of moral values of people. We know of sitting incumbents who demand 20% outright kickback even before the public projects have even started - this is simply disgusting. And let us not be lured by that popular "bullshit" that the DPWH is a national agency - because everyone and his uncle knows that local public officials largely determine who the contractors would be even, if the projects are under DPWH administration.

By no means are we saying that all reelectionists are crooks - but please discern the good from those who only try to appear good and by all means, vote back those who can come and face the people with clean hands. Discard the others.

The second batch belongs to those who want to recapture the political positions. The questions to be asked should include: why are they hankering for the same post again - are there good projects left unfinished? Is he a better political animal with a cleaner nose than the incumbent?

The third batch we classify tongue-in-cheek as new kids in the block - because many of them literally are kids of disqualified incumbents, spouses or in-laws of the powers-that-be who we had barbecued in a scathing editorial last week. Of course above blood lines, education and professional qualifications - how does he rate against the lofty standards of honesty and integrity? That is a query an electorate should ask to himself.

The nation is in search for perhaps that fourth batch of obscure candidates - the allegorical Davids - with odds stacked against them because they lack money, influence and network but have golden hearts and the fear of God running through their blood veins. We ask the electorate to identify them - and we offer our twin media - radio and newspaper - time and space - so they can articulate their platforms and air their qualifications.

We offer - in humble public service - to equalize and level the playing field. Let us elect people who will not buy votes (they don't have the cash in the first place, nor the intention, in the second place) who sincerely believe any vote - undeserved - they will return - at the risk of losing the election.

Let us all put an end to patronage politics where we give our votes to those who had given us or will render us favors - to the exclusion of others. Let us not just stop selling our votes to the highest bidder - but just simply stop selling our votes - whether for P20 or P1,000 because it is not right thing to do.

We had editorialized time and again that selling votes make elections expensive which translates into "corruption" because candidates will recoup their expenses. Corruption drives away investors which situation explains why we don't have enough jobs to go by.

A top-notch physician who ran for a high public office (nine years ago) vowed never to try again and relive his nightmare. He says that every electorate is for sale - and will change allegiance meters away from the precinct if "the price is right." What kind of Catholic country do we have here?

We challenge the Boholano electorate to declare today: "Vote buying is the death mark of development."

And let's start identifying and supporting the little Davids out there - even if finding them may be like searching for the proverbial needle in the haystack.

But the Davids do exist - we just have not looked hard enough or else may have looked for them in the wrong places. Shalom!