62 Chasing the Wind: Assessing Philippine Democracy underestimate the actual reach of a family's power and influence since these do not include family members elected to lower positions in local governments such as those of city and municipal mayors and members of provincial, city, and municipal boards. However, by concentrating on congressional and gubernatorial positions, the study is able to identify the most powerful and influential political families.18 This research also uses data drawn from the human development index studies published in the Philippine Human Development Report 2008/2009 to probe into possible relationships between electoral outcomes and three indicators of human development: income, health, and education. Not surprisingly, the elections between 1987 and 2010 provide a dramatic proof of the continuing dominance and resilience of “political families” in the country. Of the 77 provinces included in this study, 72 provinces or 94 percent have political families as defined in this study. (see Appendix 1 for the provincial and regional distribution). The average number of political families per province is 2.31 and the median is two. For the 13 landlocked provinces, the average number of political families is 1.69 with a median of 1.19 For the 17 “island provinces”, the average is 1.65 families and also a median of 1.20 Thus for both landlocked and island provinces, the number of political families tend to be smaller. Considering the more strict definition of a “political family” adopted in this chapter, these results still show a large number of such dominant political players. This study has also identified a total of 178 dominant political families of which 100 or 56 percent are old elites and 78 or 44 percent are new ones. The old political families trace their power base to the electoral politics of the postwar era, and sometimes to as far back as the colonial era. The new ones have emerged and prospered after the restoration of elections in 1987. In terms of regional distribution, the biggest number of political families are in Regions III, IV-A, and XI (the three Davao provinces) with an average of at least three dominant political families per province. Except for Nueva Ecija, Quezon, and Davao Oriental , all the other 11 provinces in these three regions belong to the upper half of the best performing provinces using human development indicators in 2006.21 In fact, seven of these provinces (Rizal, Cavite, Bataan, Pampanga, Bulacan, Batangas, and Tarlac) ranked within the top 20 provinces on human development indicators. Many of the oldest and most resilient political families in the country (such as the Josons of Nueva Ecija, the Cojuangcos and Aquinos of Tarlac, the Nepomucenos and Lazatins of Pampanga, the Gordons and Magsaysays of Zambales, Laurels and Rectos of Batangas, San Luis and Chipecos of Laguna, Alcalas and Envergas of Quezon, and the Rodriguez family of Rizal) come from these regions. The data suggest that the richer and more populous provinces with at least two congressional