ROM the outset, it must be borne in mind that technology is only as tamper-proof as the people charged with the responsibility of administering it. Technology does not fail. It only malfunctions if the people who manage it are not credible.
Be that as it may, we must at all times accept that all processes, including the electoral one, are local. Technology is only a buffer. We vote manually and go on to count the votes manually. In the case of the national vote, the Presidential poll, we bring in technology to transmit the results to Nairobi, from where the declaration of the winning candidate is made.
In essence, we have integrated technology at the tail- end of the process. Electronic transmission of the results removes the human element from the process, raising serious integrity issues with whatever is announced thereafter.
This electronic transmission places the process out of the control of the very people who vote. It removes the people from the voting process and places the onus on a small group of officials and their CEO to make a declaration.
In other words, we use technology to remove the electoral process from the people who vote. We use technology to complicate the electoral process. The clearest way of making technology tamper-proof, thus, is for the system to allow for the declaration of results at the local level, once the voting and counting has been done. What should be transmitted to the system are the final results. The second way to make technology tamper-proof in our elections is to develop a system with multiple passwords. These passwords should be given to the competing players in the elections: This could be the main coalitions or the main contenders for the Presidential seat, plus the IEBC. Under this arrangement no one particular password should access the server in the absence of the other.
The server of a tamper-proof system can only open when all the multiple passwords are applied.
In the last elections, only IEBC officials held the password of the server. But what will stop such officers from accessing the server and interfering with it?
Let the leading contenders in the election have a security access to the server. But the system must be reconfigured in such way that no one person or party can access it in the absence of the other parties.