Automated counting, not automated voting

I hope I am wrong, but the growing perception nowadays is that those in power and occupying positions in government seem to believe that they are the only ones who know and who are always correct in their decisions on what is good for the country and for the people whom they call their “boss.” Ironically however, such attitude may be more detrimental to the country because their own boss and the insignificant others who disagree with them may really have good points and brighter ideas that may be completely disregarded or ignored. The worse part here is that sometimes our officials now even challenge those who disagree with them to just bring the case to court thus only leading to more division and controversy like what we are experiencing now. Obviously, we really don’t have yet that kind of government with an open mind and heart to listen and seriously consider ideas and arguments from all sides before arriving at vital decisions. Partisan politics and cronyism (the KKK who can do no wrong at all) still prevail in running the affairs of government. Walang pagbabago.

A case in point here is the recent decision of the Comelec to purchase the Smartmatic PCOS machines used in the last 2010 elections when we had the first ever automated voting and counting of votes in the country. Apparently the Comelec decided to also automate the coming 2013 elections and to use the same PCOS machines because the prevailing consensus continuing up to now is that said automated election was generally successful in the sense that rampant cheating and other fraudulent election practices had allegedly been prevented. Indeed, the amazing speed in knowing the election results only a few hours after the closing of the polling booth has all the more convinced the Comelec to purchase and use the same PCOS machines. But are those PCOS machines really that reliable for the government to spend billions of pesos to purchase them? This is the question which the Comelec should have considered more thoroughly and extensively before making that decision.

Even before the 2010 elections when those machines were still being considered to be used in the first ever automated elections, several IT experts have already expressed their misgivings about their accuracy and invulnerability to human manipulations. Hence the Automated Election Law ( RA 9369) itself has provided some safeguards. Among these safeguards is the requirement to conduct a random manual audit of the election results in at least one precinct every congressional district and for the Board of Canvassers to announce and report the result of such audit before proclaiming the winners (Section 29). But this is a safeguard which has been taken for granted last elections especially when the supposed overall nationwide results appeared to coincide with the overwhelming sentiment of the people as reflected in the exit polls conducted by the leading pollsters in the country. Before relying and deciding to use those PCOS machines for the coming elections therefore, the Comelec should determine first whether this particular provision of law was strictly followed. This is very important in establishing the reliability of these machines.

Another requirement of RA 9369 to establish the reliability of these machines is the “source code” that should be made available and open to any political party or groups which may conduct their own review of how the machine works (Section 12). Source code is the human readable instructions that define what the computer equipment will do, or the master blueprint that reveals and determines how the machine will behave. The Supreme Court (SC), in the case of Center for People Empowerment in Governance (CENPEG) vs. Comelec, G.R. 189546, September 25, 2010, likened the source code to a recipe in a cookbook but also pointed out that “while errors in a recipe might be noticed and corrected by the cook, errors in source code can be disastrous because the code is executed by the computer exactly as written whether that was what the programmer entered or not.” Thus in said case the SC directed the Comelec to make the source code for the AES technologies it selected for implementation, available to CENPEG and all other interested parties or groups for independent review. Up to now however said order has apparently remained uncomplied by the Comelec as CENPEG has not yet conducted a review. Hence choosing the same kind of technology particularly the use of the same PCOS machines is still quite un-reliable and inadvisable.

Indeed, the more important question that the Comelec must consider is: Do we really need to have an automated election this coming 2013? To answer this question, it must be pointed out first of all that election is actually a two step process.

The first step is the filling up and casting of the votes. This step constitutes the real essence of suffrage which is both a right and a sacred duty enshrined in our Constitution. And it is more in keeping with its nature that the citizens themselves manually fill up the ballot in the privacy of a polling booth without anybody else present to ensure utmost freedom. Then the voters themselves will personally place the ballot in the ballot box. It may be more time consuming but it is worth the time spent. Furthermore, the opportunity to cheat or commit fraud seems to be improbable unlike when this step is automated where the machines that can be programmed to cheat or commit fraud are practically filling up the ballots and doing the voting instead of the people themselves. Indeed in more technologically advanced countries like Germany, this step is still manually done up to now just to instill in the people the importance of the process and the great responsibility they have in safeguarding their votes.

The second step is the counting of the votes cast. Obviously, if this is done manually, there are more chances of cheating and fraud and the results are not immediately known. As shown in the past elections, the counting and canvassing can be delayed for days and weeks or even months by the election workers or canvassers who can cite all sorts of excuses to manipulate the results. Indeed there were lots of candidates in the past elections who won in the voting but lost in the counting. Thus in order to control election fraud and cheating, and for quicker count, this process should be the only one automated.

Hopefully therefore, the Comelec will still reconsider its decision to buy those PCOS machines.