The votes are in: Election automation is in the public interest n automation is in the public interest
THE CREDIBILITY of the 2016 elections is the basis of President Duterte’s strong mandate to lead the Philippines for the next six years. The unsung hero of that process, and of the rise of “Radical Change,” is the automated election system.
Before the automated polling system and the vote- counting machines ( VCMs) were introduced, scandal-ridden Philippine elections were routine. In 2004, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo’s “Hello Garci” incident undermined her legitimacy as president, which later spiraled into repeated mobilizations for her ouster. Although President Arroyo completed her years in office, her precarious position had dampening effects on the economy, on the outlook of safety and security, and the people’s faith in democracy.
President Duterte’s triumph at the polls puts him in a solid position with no risk of a Gloria-esque crisis of legitimacy. This sets up a strong foundation to introduce structural change, such as his campaign pronouncements on federalism, and no-nonsense law and order.
SPEED AND CREDIBILITY GO HAND-IN-HAND
In a nationwide Pulse Asia survey of 1,200 respondents conducted from July 2-8, Filipinos showed high satisfaction with the elections. An impressive 93% believed that the election was orderly and free from confusion. This response is similar to the 92% posted in June 2013. Fewer Filipinos reported violence in their jurisdictions. Only 4% said that violence had taken place, compared to 10% in June 2013.
People’s perceptions on the prevalence of vote buying improved; 25% said that votes were being bought, in contrast to the 34% that said the same in June 2013. Only 10% of respondents said there were cheating incidents, unlike the 13% of June 2013. When compared with the 2010 elections, the results are as favorable: with 41% saying there was less cheating compared to only 5% who said there was more cheating and 10% who said there was as much (rampant) cheating as before. The balance of 22% said the situation was the same while 23%were uncertain.
Moreover, the unprecedented speed of the automated election system ( AES) and the elimination of human intervention in the count wiped out the opportunity of election operators to deploy their old cheating tactics. The electorate applauded the speedy release of results: Similar to the satisfaction results, 92% said the release was fast, a substantial in-
crease to those who said the same in June 2013 (86%). When taken in comparison with 2010, 78% said that the speed was faster and 12% say it was as fast as before. Only 2% said it was just as slow while a low 7% said it was slower. A negligible 2% were uncertain.
When asked about the credibility of the results: 89% believed the results, compared to 88% who said the same in June 2013. When asked to compare the credibility of the 2016 elections to the previous automated elections, 63% believed that the recent results were more credible, 20% said it was just as credible while only 9% said it was less credible than before. A smaller 2% said 2016 was less credible than before, and 5% were uncertain.
THE PUBLIC IS SATISFIED WITH AUTOMATION
Pulse Asia also asked respondents for their views on the automated polling system. Overall, 81% of all of the interviewees were satisfied with the system, 12% may or may not be satisfied, and 7% were dissatisfied. Among the 91% registered voters with biometrics, 82% were satisfied, 10% may or may not be satisfied, and 7% were dissatisfied. Finally, among those who voted last May 2016 elections, 83% were satisfied, 10% gave a neutral response, and only 7% were dissatisfied.
When asked about their preference for continuing automated voting in future elections, an overwhelming 88% of respondents expressed support greatly outnumbering the 9% who rejected while a mere 3% remained uncertain. Among voters with biometrics, 89% supported continuation of the AES. As above, only 9% disagreed, and 2% were uncertain.
Among the 84% of those who cast their vote last May 2016 elections, a similar percentage of 89% want to retain the automated system while only 9% said they disagreed and 2% were uncertain.
NO ROLLING BACK NOW
Not too long ago, election day featured widespread rotating power cuts, vote rigging, slow manual counting, and gun violence. The situation has drastically improved, and people’s perceptions with it. The continued implementation of election automation has restored the faith of Filipinos in the country’s elections, allowing them to be a better instrument for facilitating a peaceful and orderly political transition.
The government and Filipinos must learn to protect this pivotal victory in our electoral history. In the next elections, expect political operators to again cast doubt on the proven merits of automated elections. There is no doubt that Republic Act 9369 (the election automation law) has proven its value as landmark legislation that revolutionized what was a rotten system.
Nevertheless, there will always be room for improvement.
With three years before the next election, Comelec should act now on policy and technology reforms that will further improve transparency and security. A more aggressive communications effort that aims to remove the “black box” syndrome of the voting machine must be carefully designed to gain the absolute trust of the people.
The Duterte government has the opportunity to transform the Comelec into a technologically empowered institution with dynamic policies, retooled infrastructure and talent that delivers Philippine democracy.