I. Definition and Description of Technology Computerized voting is a superior form of casting ballots. It allows for fairer and faster voting. It takes many forms with different processes but how it is implemented depends on the technological facilities allocated for the elections procedure. Automated election system (AES) is a system that uses appropriate technology to accomplish and aid such tasks as voting, counting, consolidating, canvassing, and transmission of election result, and other electoral process. Republic Act No. 9369, which is the Amended Elections Automation Law provides for the use of two forms of AES. The first is a paper-based election system defined as “a type of automated election system that uses paper ballots, records and counts votes, tabulates, consolidates, canvasses and transmits electronically the results of the vote count.” It uses the Optical Mark Reader (OMR) Technology. Here, the voters have to shade the oval which corresponds to their candidate of choice using pencil in a specially scanned paper ballot. It is composed of 2 Laptops, 2 Digital Scanners, 2 card readers, 1 hub and 1 printer. The votes in the shaded ballots will then be scanned and counted using an Automated Counting Machine (ACM). This kind of technology is pretty much familiar in the Philippines. It is used in the National Secondary Aptitude Test (NSAT), formerly the National College Entrance Examination (NCEE), given by the Department of Education (DepEd), and in the Civil Service Commission (CSC) Licensure Examinations and other examinations given by the Professional Regulatory Commission (PRC), wherein the answer sheet is composed of ovals and the oval corresponding to the chosen answer would be shaded by the examinee. The Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO) for its Lotto system, wherein the ovals, corresponding to the numbers being bet upon, are also shaded, employs a similar system. In all these, the answer sheets and the lotto cards are read, or counted, by the OMR. Because of its familiarity, and because it makes use of ballots which is what most Filipinos are familiar to, this system was recommended as the most suitable for the Philippine setting. The second form is the Direct Recording Electronic (DRE). It is defined as “a type of automated election system that uses electronic ballots, records votes by means of a ballot display provided with mechanical or electro-optical components that can be activated by the voter, processes data by means of a computer program, records voting data and ballot images, and transmits voting results electronically.” voters are provided with a Voting Pad where the photos of candidates can be selected by pressing on the desired picture. Once the vote is final, a receipt is generated after pressing ‘BOTO‘. The Board of Election
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
I. Definition and Description of Technology
Computerized voting is a superior form of casting ballots. It allows for fairer and faster voting. It
takes many forms with different processes but how it is implemented depends on the
technological facilities allocated for the elections procedure. Automated election system
(AES) is a system that uses appropriate technology to accomplish and aid such tasks as voting,
counting, consolidating, canvassing, and transmission of election result, and other electoral
process. Republic Act No. 9369, which is the Amended Elections Automation Law provides for the
use of two forms of AES. The first is a paper-based election system defined as “a type of
automated election system that uses paper ballots, records and counts votes, tabulates,
consolidates, canvasses and transmits electronically the results of the vote count.” It uses the
Optical Mark Reader (OMR) Technology. Here, the voters have to shade the oval which
corresponds to their candidate of choice using pencil in a specially scanned paper ballot. It is
composed of 2 Laptops, 2 Digital Scanners, 2 card readers, 1 hub and 1 printer. The votes in the
shaded ballots will then be scanned and counted using an Automated Counting Machine (ACM).
This kind of technology is pretty much familiar in the Philippines. It is used in the National
Secondary Aptitude Test (NSAT), formerly the National College Entrance Examination (NCEE),
given by the Department of Education (DepEd), and in the Civil Service Commission (CSC)
Licensure Examinations and other examinations given by the Professional Regulatory
Commission (PRC), wherein the answer sheet is composed of ovals and the oval corresponding to
the chosen answer would be shaded by the examinee. The Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office
(PCSO) for its Lotto system, wherein the ovals, corresponding to the numbers being bet upon, are
also shaded, employs a similar system. In all these, the answer sheets and the lotto cards are
read, or counted, by the OMR. Because of its familiarity, and because it makes use of ballots
which is what most Filipinos are familiar to, this system was recommended as the most suitable for
the Philippine setting.
The second form is the Direct Recording Electronic (DRE). It is defined as “a type of automated
election system that uses electronic ballots, records votes by means of a ballot display provided
with mechanical or electro-optical components that can be activated by the voter, processes data
by means of a computer program, records voting data and ballot images, and transmits voting
results electronically.” voters are provided with a Voting Pad where the photos of candidates can
be selected by pressing on the desired picture. Once the vote is final, a receipt is generated after
pressing ‘BOTO‘. The Board of Election Inspectors keeps the receipt just in case there are
complaints raised. However, DRE Technology can only be deployed in areas where
communications is available and reliable.
The first automated election was held in ARMM last August 11, 2008. There were a lot of “firsts”
during this historical event: First fraud-free election in more than half a century; first time the
winning candidates were proclaimed in less than two days after election day; first to use electronic
voting and transmission machines in a Philippine electoral exercise; first time election results have
been uncontested; first elections with practically no reports of voter disenfranchisement; and first
elections where the rate of failure of elections is less than 1 percent. Voters’ turnout was greater
than expected, reaching 90% of the expected voting population.
On February 25, UP Diliman(UPD) held its first campus-wide computerized University Student
Council (USC) elections. The open source voting system, called “Halalan”, was created by the UP
Linux Users Group (UnPLUG), a student organization at the College of Engineering (CoE). The
colleges provided the computers for the elections. The voting process started with students
presenting their IDs or Form-5s to attending poll clerks, who checked the list of valid voters.
Students on the list then received their passwords from the poll clerks and proceeded to
unoccupied voting stations. Using their student numbers and the passwords provided as login
information, they opened their electronic ballots and marked the boxes of their chosen candidates.
Once they clicked the confirm button, their votes were final and they were automatically logged
out. The system allows voters to log in again but only to check their votes, not change them. The
first working prototype of Halalan was created in January 2005 and presented to UPD student
councils and student publications later that month at the Palma Hall Lobby. Its first application in
the USC elections was at the CoE and the School of Statistics in 2007. A year later, the College of
Business Administration, the College of Mass Communication, and the School of Library and
Information Science also adopted the system.
II. Providers of the Technology
Computerized elections would not be possible without Republic Act No. 9369 and the lawmakers
behind it. But, ultimately, this new system of voting cannot be implemented without the
technology need to run the whole system. As far as the government is concerned, making such
provisions is the extent of their ability to provide computerized elections. A third party is needed
to fully implement the Act by providing the government and the Philippines with the
technology needed to run the elections. Here is where the technology providers come in.
Different firms have showed interest in providing the machinery and computers for the Philippines’
automated elections. 11 of which are foreign companies, though only one of them will be chosen
and be given the contract through a series of bidding. These are US firms Sequioa, Avante, ES/S,
Hart and Scantron; Venezuela’s Smartmatic; United Kingdom’s DRS; India’s Bharat; South
Korea’s DVS Korea; Gilat Solution of Israel and Spain’s Indra System. Whoever gets the contract
will be renting out about 80,000 machines that will be used for the 2010 elections. Two of these
providers have already serviced the elections here in the Philippines, specifically the ARMM
elections. Venezuela’s Smartmatic provided the DRE – Direct Recording Electronic technology
which uses an Automated Voting Machine (AVM) and allows voters to choose their candidates on
an electronic voting pad and confirm their choices using a simple touch screen system. The
Smartmatic SAES4000 system is a combination of hardware with secure software and manned by
highly qualified human resources that enables it to ensure fault less elections. Smartmatic joined
forces with Strategic Alliance Holdings, Inc. (SAHI), a fully Filipino owned technology provider
specializing in the provision of IT solutions to both the public and private sectors, to form
SMARTMATIC-SAHI Technology, Inc. Together; they provided the necessary technology and IT
solutions for the automation ARMM elections and if given the contract again, they may as well
provide the technology and technical expertise for the 2010 national elections. Another provider in
the ARMM elections and a bidder for the contract for the 2010 elections is Avante International
Technology, Inc. They provided the OMR – Optical Mark Reader technology. Their very own,
AVANTE's PATENTED OPTICAL-VOTE-TRAKKER® is an optical scan system that enables
scanning of paper ballots that are captured as digital ballot images for faster, easier and error free
tallying. Avante also provided Automated Counting Machine (ACM) to be used in tallying the
votes. “The AVANTE ACM system also has a patented and proven capability to detect and reject
counterfeit or fake ballots”
III. Users of the Technology
Being the little brother of the United States of America in Asia, the Philippines and we, Filipinos,
always had the notion of what a country should be. It should be for the people, by the people and
of the people in other words, democratic. We have toppled administrations that we did not approve
of and by peaceful means at that. The users of the technology, Online Elections, would be the
Filipino people in general and also, in a way it can be a step by step process in which, it can be
first implemented in school elections then, the local elections, and the national elections is the last
step. As Filipinos, we hate knowing that we are being taken advantage of whether be it in terms
elections or anything in general. We hate that we are being governed by unworthy people and
people who are not deserving of the position. How then are they able to achieve such feats? We
can’t be possibly sure but a rational explanation would be that we are being cheated in the
elections. And thus, by applying this technology we are able to prevent this from happening. The
users will benefit from it and the country as a whole because the integrity of the elections would be
objectified and strengthened. The public will also be satisfied because faster results are
guaranteed by the usage of automated and online elections. The government will also be
benefited because lesser costs will have to be allocated for the elections in the long run. The initial
costs might be high because of the need for technology and infrastructure upgrades and
manpower training, but the succeeding costs in the next elections will be lower. However, there is
also one thing that is hindering us from achieving this goal of ours, which is the digital divide,
mainly because of poverty. The problem with online voting systems is that those who do not
have any experience or knowledge on using or manipulating computers would find it hard
and tedious to vote through computers and as such will have a harder time to cast their
ballots. This might lead to lesser voter turnouts, hence, lesser participation from the
general public that might affect the usefulness of the elections. This might be a hindrance
to our being democratic and liberal as a people because we might accidentally shut down
those who are illiterate in computers by implementing an online platform for the elections.
The voters should be well informed and prepared for such adaptation of technology. As
Information Technology advances here in the Philippines, the group believes that, we will be able
to lessen the digital divide as an effect of online voting, as a consequence of the implementation of
online voting. This will be a simultaneous effect because the government and the people are now
more pressured to learn and be well versed in ICT because it is now a prerequisite to exercise
their voting rights. In short, it is a two-pronged spear that would have exponential benefits when
implemented rightfully.
IV. Technology Assessment
A. Readiness of the Philippines to Adapt to an Online Platform of Elections
Is the Philippines ready for automated election? Are we ready for something new? First, let us
discuss the advantages and disadvantages that will emerge if our country engages with an
automated election. Smartmatic (also referred as Smartmatic Corp. or Smartmatic International) is
a multinational corporation founded in 2000 that specializes in the design and deployment of
complex purpose-specific technology solutions. It is organized around three business areas:
Electronic voting systems, integrated security systems, and biometric systems for people
registration and authentication for government applications. Smartmatic offers the Smartmatic
Automated Election System (SAES), a unified voting, scrutiny, tabulation, allocation and result
broadcast solution -suitable for any type of election- which was officially released in 2003. In
addition to the many benefits of the SAES system, its most outstanding advantage lies in the
guarantee of total transparency in any given electoral or referendum process. SAES offers the
possibility to verify and audit results through different means, guaranteeing zero numerical
inconsistencies between all stages covered by every single vote, from actual casting to final
scrutiny. Smartmatic provides us other benefits and advantages if we will deal with automation of
election.
1. Financial Savings
Though automated elections deals with acquiring computer, hence will cost a large amount of
money, it can still cut cost in other expenses, i.e. labor cost. Since the computer would do the
counting. That means fewer laborers are needed. Normally, automation requires a large up-front
investment in hardware and software, as well as expensive training of electoral workers and
running educational campaigns for voters. Automated elections guarantees short- and long-term
returns that can greatly compensate for the initial investment.
2. Increased speed and efficiency of electoral task and faster electoral results
The computer to be used has internal tools that can increase speed and efficiency for some
important works during the election. Also, using computers would make the election itself faster.
Voting manually would consume time for the voters to write name of the candidates, etc. Also, with
vast advancement of technology, the machine/ computer has a tool that can count the votes faster
and more accurate. Using computers/machines, they would be the one to tally and transmit the
votes to the electoral board without human intervention. The automated electoral system
mechanisms significantly reduce the chances of errors, because vote counting is based on an
internal machine count rather than on individual ballots, which can be tampered with.
3. Improved capacity to identify and prevent frauds
With the system using ultra-safe encryption algorithms to store and transmit each vote from the
SAES voting machine to the tabulation centers, tampering of votes will be prevented and the
integrity of the elections would be higher.
On the other hand, one of the disadvantages of using computers/ machine in election is the
broad knowledge of man in terms of technology. Though computers may have high
securities, there are many computer “geeks” that can bombard the computers and the
system as a whole. They have many ways to hack those computers to be used in the
elections. Hackers are the number one enemy of this system. Hackers are known to
infiltrate and manipulate even the most sophisticated computer programs in the world.
Also, technology, though seems to be perfect, may still have errors in its components. We
all know that no computer system is 100% tamper-proof, or foolproof. We are not sure that
it, the automated election, may give us the best results of the elections. Also, can this
system eliminate other election-related problems like vote buying?
Presented with the advantages and disadvantages, another question may arise, will the
people of the Philippines be able to adapt to the new system?
In the present generation, people became more literate, especially with the use of computer.
Having had computer lessons during elementary and secondary education, even in public schools,
people know the basics on the use of computer. One survey conducted was that about 25 million
Filipinos are using computers and the internet, mostly in developed cities. Though some are
underprivileged, they still have access on computers through internet cafés. However, that is in
the urban area. How about in the rural and the isolated area? We all know that the
Philippines is a developing country, and many areas here do not permit people to have a
technology-integrated lives. ****Especially in the province, many indigenous ethnic groups
do not know how to use computer, nor, do they know how to read and write. So, how can
these people adapt to the new system? They need time to learn. Also, some areas here in
the Philippines do not have electricity. In those areas, for sure, they would conduct manual
voting.**** It is not consistent that some areas will have automated election, while some
have manual elections. Actually, last August 2008, the ARMM conducted their elections. They
used a new system of automation. Hence, the COMELEC said that the election was a success.
COMELEC Jose Melo said he was “very, very satisfied” with the conduct of the elections in the
ARMM, dubbed the “cheating capital” of the Philippines. And less than 24 hours, more than half of
the poll results were in with the COMELEC. As what we discussed earlier, automated election
would increase speed and efficiency, like what the ARMM election has experienced. Actually, this
automated election in ARMM is an experiment for the 2010 National election. If the ARMM election
is a success, would be the National Election on 2010 be a success with the use of computer?
We’ll find out since the President signed the law that passed Republic Act No. 9525 appropriating
11.3-billion supplemental budget for the full automation of the elections, a first in Philippine
history. Hence, that is next year, we will see if the Philippines will be capable of having an
automated election.
B. General Feasibility of Online Elections in the Philippines
Is it Feasible?
If one out of ten Filipinos have no ability to read and write at the same time, is it possible for the
Philippines to have automated elections? Let us remember that for the past decades, Filipinos
have successfully voted even though some do not know how to read and write. Clearly, the
Philippines will be pushing through with the automated elections by the year 2010. An automated
election will be feasible in the Philippines with the right and proper technology or system to be
used. There are certain problems that it might encounter. Electricity in the rural areas of the
Philippines is not always available; if it is available it is not that reliable. If the Commission on
Elections will use Direct Recording Equipment Process there would be a problem in deploying the
hundreds of thousands of units to different locations all through out the Philippines. A number of
technical personnel are needed to install the system. The government already provided a budget
for the transmission of the machines as well as payments needed for the technical personnel. All
the voters must be trained to use the DRE system. According to Senator Gordon, Filipinos are
smart enough to participate in an automated election. He also suggested that an automated
election is going to be more feasible if there would be a national ID system based on
Is it Feasible to be able to come up with a check and balance so that cheating would not be
prevalent?
It is feasible. An automated election, for a fact, cannot fully prevent cheating but only certain forms
of it could be prevented through check and balance. It is also a fact that there is no system that is
tamper proof. The following are plausible forms of check and balance: paper audit trail of ballots,
protection of software source code, no switching of ballot boxes, the testing of the technologies,
and the addition of some amendments on the Senate Bill No. 2231. The Automated Election Bill in
the Philippines requires that there should be a voter verifiable paper audit trail. This feature of the
bill will reduce the incidents of vote buying and increase the security and credibility of the people’s
votes. The voter verifiable audit trail enables the voters to review and edit their votes. On the same
note the right amount of protection on the automated elections' software source code would
prevent hackers on hacking on to the computers for counting and thus prevents the tampering on
the number of votes. On the old system, manual transmissions of ballot boxes allow the possibility
of ballot switching but with the new system, it would be prevented. Another way to check if it is
feasible to have an automated election without cheating to be prevalent is to test the technology
itself. The technology should be checked if it is efficient and if it works the way it should be to
further eliminate certain problems with it. By testing the technology, COMELEC will know
beforehand if the system can be tampered as well as its errors. The Senate approved Senate Bill
No. 2231, the Amendment to the Election Automation Law states additional security for the
random auditing of the system and system for recount. Other kinds of check and balance are
instead of writing the name, voters marks the candidate of their choice, the voter should physically
feed the ballot into the machine where the ballot has its picture taken, the election returns are
proposed to be automatically transmitted, the OMR machines should not be equip with any kind of
communication devices, there should be seven copies of the ER to be sent to different computers,
COMELEC would provide PC’s for the different parties so that they can follow the tabulation, and
the statement of vote would be projected in each canvassing center so that the watchers can
compare the totals.
V. Conclusion
The paper discussed the advent of online elections that would probably dawn on us, Filipinos, next
elections. It provided a background on the basics of online/automated elections, the components
needed to make it possible, the methods that would be employed to guarantee the integrity safety
of the votes, a discussion on the general feasibility as grounded to the advantages and
disadvantages of the technology, and everything was then contextualized to fit the circumstances
of the Philippines. It can then be concluded that online/automated/computerized elections can be
possible in the Philippines if sufficient training and preparations are employed in spearheading it.
The long-term benefits of the said platform for voting greatly exceed the initial technological and
training costs that it would entail making it a feasible investment in the future for our country. But
even if this new voting platform is grounded on technology and is streamlined by modernity, it is
still not foolproof. Many problems were discussed regarding the possibility of hacking and the
crashing of the system but it can still be considered safer than the manual voting system that we
have been implementing for so long now. The problem of digital divide was also alluded to the
discussion. The Philippines, as a developing country, has regions and groups of people that are
deprived of technology and proper training and education. This might lead to an accidental and
virtual exclusion of these people and towns from the up and coming online elections, which might
possibly make lessen the voters’ turnout and the whole democracy of our elections. It can also be
deduced that the implementation of the online elections will not only strengthen the integrity of our
votes but in the process close the digital divide that we are experiencing right now. By training our
people to use ICT, we are making them ready to use it for more things to come-not just for mere
electoral usage. To end, our country might be a long way to go from being industrialized and fully
prepared to reap the benefits of ICT in every major part of our everyday lives, but the conduct of
the 2010 online/automated elections is a still a big step forward towards the achievement of a truly
democratic and honest elections and the closure of the digital divide as a whole. Our
infrastructures might not be at par to other countries and our people might not be fully informed
and trained yet, but these shortcomings can be greatly remedied if we are equipped with the
willingness to learn and adapt to our ever-changing world.
Election Automation -- Motivations
This section we will discuss a variety of reasons for automating various parts of the electoral
process. In order to make the best use of technology in a given jurisdiction, it is important to
understand the motivations that are driving automation initiatives. It is also important to remember
that automation cannot solve all electoral problems. Indeed there are many situations in which
automation is not necessary or even useful.
One aspect that too often is neglected when discussing the pros and cons of election automation
is the EMBs importance as educator of the representative democratic system. It is true that under
certain conditions automation of the electoral process and the work of the EMB are valid. But we
should not ignore the short-and long-term affect that having ordinary people involved in the
electoral process has on the elections. By employing vast number of people as registrants and
verifiers of signatures for candidates and parties; registration clerks of the voters' roll, and
members of local election committees all over the country the EMB is reaching into a very large
number of households in a country. What they learn during their training and experience in their
work is shared and discussed with families and friends at dinner tables and social events for
months leading up to election day. We sometimes tend to forget that in many countries, the EMBs
are indirectly conveying a bulk of the voter education and voter information messages via their
temporary employees. Hence, when introducing new technologies in an electoral process in
emerging democracies resulting in a reduction of the workforce, we must be aware that the voter
education and voter information budget have to be adjusted too.
Some common motivations for election automation include:
saving money
increasing the speed and efficiency of election-related tasks
increasing the speed of obtaining election results
improving the accuracy of election results
improving the ability to identify and prevent fraud
improving public confidence in the electoral process
demonstrating 'high-tech' capabilities 32
Saving Money
Election automation can potentially save money by reducing labor costs associated with an
election. Cost savings can be realized through automated vote counting as well as automating
other election-related tasks. In the future systems that let voters vote from home, business, or
public-access computers may reduce costs associated with setting up and staffing polling
locations.
However, it is important for election administrators to do a comprehensive cost analysis
before assuming that automation will save them money. Automation requires a significant
initial investment in computer hardware and software as well as expenses to train election
personnel and educate voters. Computer equipment requires ongoing maintenance and will
need to be periodically upgraded or replaced. Computers that are used only on election day
will need to be safely stored between elections. And equipment may need to be transported
from storage to voting and tallying sites on election day.
Increasing the Speed and Efficiency of Electoral Tasks
At various stages of the electoral process, election administrators are required to handle large
quantities of data, and under tight deadlines. Therefore they should constantly be on the lookout
for potential improvements. There are a variety of tools that can increase the speed and
efficiency ofelection-related tasks. Vendors offer technology solutions that can:
automate election planning, managing, budgeting, and record keeping
draw precinct boundaries and assign voters to precincts
verify and count signatures on petitions
provide information to candidates, parties, and voters
monitor and prepare reports on campaign contributions and spending
register voters and create voter identification cards
authenticate voters at voting sites
manage absentee voting, including verifying signatures on absentee ballot envelopes
record votes, count ballots, and transmit local tallies to central tallying facilities
disseminate election results33
Increasing the Speed of Obtaining Election Results
Election automation can greatly reduce the time it takes to count ballots and obtain election
results. If voters enter their votes directly into a computer or ballots are tallied at precinct locations,
precinct tallies may be automatically transferred to tallying centers and results obtained almost
immediately after the polls close. Even if ballots are not tallied locally, automated methods of ballot
counting provide great time savings over hand counting.
Improving the Accuracy of Election Results
One of the core issues resulting in heated discussions in the courtrooms and TV studios in the US
in the end of 2000 was the accuracy of the various counting techniques employed in the different
counties. President George W. Bush's Director of Communication argued that hand counting votes
was not a reliable method, and should be discouraged. Too much subjectivity was involved in that
process, and therefore machine counts should be used, it was alleged. In order for technical
machines to live up to our high expectation they however must be thoroughly tested and
maintained, and the administrators and voters using them must be adequately trained in order to
operate them correctly. If this is the case, then machines could potentially be able to provide more
accurate results than can be provided by hand-counted ballots. Furthermore, when voters enter
their votes directly into a computer, inaccuracies introduced as a result of voters' unclear ballot
marks can be eliminated. It is important to remember, however, that problems with computer
hardware or software may also introduce extensive errors.
Improving the Ability to Identify and Prevent Fraud
Automated systems can reduce opportunities for some kinds of election fraud. Fraud may be
reduced if voted ballots need not be physically transported, if computerised voter registration logs
make it easier to identify people who should not be registered or who attempt to vote using
someone else's registration, or if all computer system accesses are thoroughly logged. Of course,
computerised voting opens up opportunities for new types of voting fraud. Computer files can be
destroyed due to viruses or erased by hackers. In addition, it is much more difficult for local and
international observers to verify and control that data has not been manipulated. Thus, it is
essential that extensive precautions be taken.
Improving Public Confidence in the Electoral Process
If members of the public trust technology and believe that its use will prevent fraud, they may have
more confidence in the electoral process. If people distrust technology, however, or if technology
used in an election proves difficult to use or fails, people are likely to lose confidence in the
electoral process.
Demonstrating 'High-Tech' Capabilities
Many elected officials are enthusiastic about computerised voting simply because they want to
project a 'high-tech' image for their administration or for their state or country. This is not a good
reason for automation if it is the only one for automation. When accompanied by other reasons,
however, this motivation may help drive financial allocations and legislation that might be
necessary to realise election automation.
I. Introduction
It is a proven fact that during Philippine elections a lot of comments occur. The kind of
election here in the Philippines is very different from the others. We were astonished to the
US presidential election last year which Barack Obama won. It was an astonishing event
that the world has ever seen. But, what made us astonished is that it took only few hours to
proclaim the next president of the most powerful nation in the world. Polls were
computerized, everything was so organized. Now it made us think that if computerized
voting system is being forwarded for approval in the Philippines for the 2010 election. To us,
it will be a nice move by the government to gain back the trust of the nation.
Every election in the Philippines was seemed to be dirty and bloody. And with that
computerized voting scheme, the upcoming election won’t repeat what happened to the
previous years. Votes back them were counted manually by underpaid public school
teachers. And when evening comes, the next day, people would hear in news that a
precinct staff was murdered and the ballot box stolen. This is actually so common here. And
even before the election a candidate would be in the news, ambushed, murdered and
forced to step down. That is how dirty politics here.
Now back to the computerized election, it is a very great idea to keep the election clean.
We are now living in a high technology world and it is about time that the country makes
use of high-tech equipment to significantly reduce the many problems that Philippine’s
suffered during election.
Statement of the problem
1. What is a computerized election system?
2. When was the first computerized election used in the Philippines?
3. What is the difference between a manual and computerized election?
4. What are the three methods of voting?
5. How does a computerized election work?
6. What are the advantages and disadvantages of using a computerized election?
Objective of the study
1. To inform the students on what is a computerized election system.
2. To know what is the difference and which is better between manual and
computerized election.
3. To know how it would lessen the burden during Philippine election.
4. To know the advantages and disadvantages of computerized election.
5. To know how computerized election work.
Importance of the study
Every election in the Philippine was seemed to be dirty and bloody. The kind of election we
don’t want to, for it is now the time to change the level of voting here in the Philippines.
Computerized election could be a turning point for the country to be successful in many
elections to come.
This study will prove on how computerized election could help the kind of election, that
Philippine has. In addition, this study can show the different reasons why computerized
election is important to the country. However, this study could also show the disadvantages
of using computerized election.
The main purpose of this study is to inform every voter on how computerized election helps
the kind of election that Philippine has.
Review of Related Literature
A. Definition of computerized election
Computerized election system is defined as vote counting process using electronic devices
such as computers. According to an act authorizing the Commission on Elections, they
should conduct a nationwide demonstration of a computerized election system and pilot-
test it in March 1996 election in the ARMM and for other purposes
(http://www.COMELEC.com).
A. Difference between manual and computerized election
To differentiate manual from computerized election, let us first define manual election.
Manual election is defined as a system that count votes using paper audits stored by a
ballot box. In addition, manual election usually takes a long time before proclaiming the
winning candidate. It is a time consuming system, for it takes more than a month before the
results are transmitted to the COMELEC. Lastly, manual election is counted by underpaid
public school teachers, while computerized election is a system that counting and voting
process is done by using a sufficient installed program into the computers. Unlike manual
election, computerized election is easy and fast for the transmission of results is done by
computers. In addition, computerized election usually takes a short period of time before
proclaiming the winning candidate.
B. History of Computerized Election
1. The first computerized election happened during the presidential election of George W.
Bush last November 02, 2004. Computerized voting machines were used to count the
majority of the votes which the machines were built for and programmed by the companies
such as DIEBOLD and ES&S tabulated the results in record time, showing, just minutes
after the polls closed. “This is an extraordinary achievement in grass-roots politics”, said by
some political analyst (http://www.confusionroad.com/article.php?).
2. Despite threats of postponement and intermittent skirmishers between rebel and
government troops, the country’s first computerized election has been conducted smoothly-
though only in some parts of the troubled Mindanao region. The automated polls proceeded
with minor problems on August 11, 20008, with about 85 percent of 10.5 million registered
voters casting their vote, according to election officials. The landmark election was confined
within the Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao (ARMM), an aggregation of areas n the
southern island populated mostly by Muslim inhabitants. The Philippine government spent
some 600 million pesos in the computerized election which served as a test-pilot for the
country’s general election in 2010. The COMELEC said, a few voting machines
malfunctioned during the election but these were fixed promptly by the local contractors and
it is declared a successful election. The COMELEC used two electronic voting systems for
the polls: DRE (Direct Recording Electronics) system for the province of Maguindanao, and
OMR (Optical Mark Reader) technology for the provinces of Basilan, Sulu, Tawi-Tawi,
Shariff Kabunsuan and Lanao del Sur. COMELEC spokesperson James Jimenez said in a
blog post that ARMM poll was a significant milestone in the country’s election reform, noting
that voters showed enthusiasm in using automated voting machines amid security
problems. In general, the first computerized election in the Philippines was successful and
declared a milestone (http://www.completefirst.com)
II. Three methods to vote
A. Paper ballots are still used as the primary way f voting in a number of countries. Voters
mark their ballot by hand with an indelible marker (a marker that cannot be erased) or pen
and place their finished ballot in a ballot box. Local election officials then count the votes by
hand.
B. Optical Scan Voting Systems enable votes to mark their choices on pre-printed ballots by
either connecting “arrows”, or filling in “bubbles” next to the candidates’ names. The paper
ballot is then counts the married “bubbles” or “arrows” on each ballot and automatically
computes the total of each candidate and/or issue.
C. DRE’s (Direct Record Electronic System) enable voters to record their choices
electronically directly into the machine. There are several types of DRE’s (some have a dial
while others use a touch screen) but, essentially they all enable voters to move back and
forth between screens (ballot pages) to select the candidates and/or issues to whom they
wish to vote. Once a voter has made his or her choices, the DRE provides a summary
screen that presents those choices and gives the voter the ability to go back and make any
changes before the pressing the “vote” or “cast ballot” button. One of the benefits of a DRE
System is that prevents “over voting” that is, it stops the voter from selecting two candidates
or options in a race were only one is allowed. As well a DRE gives the voter an opportunity
to correct “under voting” or when he/she fails to select any candidate or option in race.
III. Process of computerized election
A. The validation system process
The commission shall take such steps as many are necessary for the security and
implementation of system promulgate for of computerized election. The commission shall
take the security of the voters and the votes. Votes shall take the validation system to
ensure the requirement in voting in a computer machine.
There are two factors to consider being valid for voting:
1. ID System
It is the process that allow voters to have its ID card to make sure that
the voter is valid. It could also be a proof that the voter is registered and legal to vote.
2. Scanning
It is the process that computers check the identification of the voter to ensure the validation
of the registered voter. Scanning can be considered as a double checker process, for it
double the information of the voter.
A. The tabulation process
Tabulation process deals with the counting of the votes and the process of the transmission
of the results. These include the consultation/canvassing and transmission of results.
Two steps to consider in tabulating process:
1. The first step
On election night at the central tabulation center, the memory card from each precinct as
ballot box is entered into a computer. This computer takes the records of each ballot from
the memory card and sorts them by precinct into separate files, one each for city, council,
school committee and ballot question. The complete ballot files for each race or question
are then copied unto a computer disk. Each ballot record consists of the candidates
selected by the voter and the order in which they were ranked.
2. The second step
The computer disk with the ballot files is installed in a second computer. This computer
contains the software which contains the ballots. The software has been programmed to
follow the “Cambridge rules”. By computer, the same process formerly carried out manually
by more than a hundred counters over the course of a week is conducted in a matter of
seconds by the electronic sorting, counting and transfer of votes.
A. Election result process
An “unofficial first count of number one votes of each candidate for city council and school
committee will be available on election night within minutes of receipt of the memory card
from the last reporting precinct. This count is referred to as “unofficial” because it does not
contain all ballots. The complete ballots records are then copied and read into the
tabulation software were they are tallied. The software produces an “unofficial first count”
and then proceeds to distribute surplus and eliminate candidates with the least number of
votes until all seats have been filled, the election commissioners declare the results.
IV. Advantages and Disadvantages of computerized election
A. Advantages of computerized election
1. Initial recording of voter information
Initial records of voter are stored to the program that is use for the voting process. With the
help of computers, information of the voters can be easily traced by the Comelec official.
2. Secure storage of votes
Through computers, the security of votes has been keep and protected for votes were
safety saved by a memory card. This memory card can’t be deleted easily by anyone. With
the help of the machine the votes are secured and the retrieval process can be done easy
and fast.
3. Maintaining the continuous list
The continuous list of the voter’s information was maintained, for the secure list of voters
information was saved by the computers.
4. Printing copies of preliminary voter’s list
The printing copies of preliminary voter’s list can be given directly to the area where voter’s
can vote. There would be an easy access for the voter’s and without any delays the list can
be shown to the voters.
5. Data entry to revise the preliminary voter’s list
The preliminary voter’s list can be revise easily if ever there is a need for revision of the
voter’s list.
6. Maintaining record of the materials inventory
The records of the materials inventory can be save and edited, with the help of the
programs installed to the computers.
7. Printing copies of the final voters list
The final copy of the voters list can be printed easily and fast to be given right away to the
area it is assign.
8. General record keeping and maintenance
The computer can keep records and maintenance safety by using the right program that
protects the general records of the voters and the votes.
9. Identifying duplicate registrations
The computer can detect duplicate registration for the voters information is saved by the
computers.
10. Producing statistics on voter registration
The computer helps producing statistics on voter by geographic area, as well as by gender,
age, etc.
11. Low cost and without wasting paper
The computer helps in not wasting too much of paper, for the format of voting is done by
computer. In addition, the cost of the election can be minimize for the computers counts
votes easy and fast.
12. Keeping an audit trail of the changes made to each voter record.
The audit trail of the changes made to each voter record can be quickly. For example, by
whom a change was made, on the basis of what source information, what data were
changed, which record attributes were affected.
13. Easy and Fast voting
With computerized voting you would have several ways to vote. If you don’t have a
computer you would go to the place where you vote how and vote on the computers
provided you to vote on. Voting at the polls will be as easy as it ever was, even easier. The
computers at the polls will be set up easy to use. Within minutes after the polls close the
computer totals the votes and the winner is displayed. Information is instantly available
about what the totals were to each area. No waiting into the night for the results to be
counted. The computers count it all up instantly.
B. Disadvantages of computerized election
1. Fraud
If wrong results can occur accidentally, they can also happen intentionally. Rigging has
been suspected in various elections, but law suits have been unsuccessful. In many other
cases, fraud could easily have taken place. For many years in Philippines, manual system
overrides were necessary to compute the processing of no computerized precincts. With
the adoption of computerized election the more tampering can occur. Computerized
elections are being run or considered but it does not answer the problem of cheating during
election.
2. Erroneous results
Computer-related error occurs with alarming frequency in elections. Computerized elections
can cause erroneous results for there is a possibility to attribute “human error” and not
“computer error”, and were presumably due to operators and hot programmers; however in
the absence of dependable accountability, who can tell? Existing Standards for designing,
testing, certifying, and operating computerized vote-counting system are inadequate and
voluntary, and provide few hard constraints, almost no accountability and no independent
expert evaluations.
3. Privacy and confidentiality
The transparency of voting can cause detection by those who want to cheat. The
confidentiality of the votes won’t be confidential anymore, for the results are done publicity.
4. Risk of theft
Computerized elections can be a risk of theft, especially to those desperate candidates who
can hire an expert. Hacking can be a problem in computerized election for there is a
possibility in manipulating the votes.
5. Cost
The cost of computerized election is expensive, that is why it is difficult for the country.
V. Conclusion
Providing sufficient measures for computerized election we therefore conclude that:
1. Computerized election is a great idea to keep the election clean.
2. Computerized election is an opportunity to promote good, quality and clean voting
process.
3. Computerized election will promote easy and fast voting unlike manual system.
4. Computerized election is a sufficient system to use in voting and counting process.
5. Computerized election helps eliminating manipulation of votes.
6. Computerized election will help in processing votes easy and fast.
7. Computerized election has more advantages than disadvantages.
8. Computerized election has disadvantages in conducting election.
9. Computerized election won’t be sufficient if it will mis handled.
10. Computerized election in the Philippines will change the way of votinng process to a
great way.
There are advantages gained last time. But did it outweigh the disadvantages?
Automated Election: Are we ready?
The Malacañang's Department of Budget and Management produce the P11.9 billion
supplemental budget for this coming election which will be automated. Christian Monsod
has been explaining how the Open Election System method of automation works.
“Monsod stressed that the proposed OES-based automated election system, combined with an
optical mark recognition (OMR) technology, could cost government about P8 billion for the
equipment and operations. If Comelec prefers getting the OES automated election system alone, it
will cost around P4 billion."
And he added that "The choice of automation technology and its successful implementation is key
to the credibility of the elections."
What was really the "Automated Election"?
Based on the Senate Bill No. 2231: (13th Congress) which entitled:
AN ACT AMENDING REPUBLIC ACT NO. 8436, ENTITLED AN ACT AUTHORIZING THE
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS TO USE AN AUTOMATED ELECTION SYSTEM IN THE MAY
11, 1998 NATIONAL OR LOCAL ELECTIONS AND IN SUBSEQUENT NATIONAL AND LOCAL
ELECTORAL EXERCISES, TO ENCOURAGE TRANSPARENCY, CREDIBILITY, FAIRNESS
AND ACCURACY OF ELECTIONS, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE BATAS PAMBANSA BLG.
881, AS AMENDED, REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7166 AND OTHER RELATED ELECTIONS LAWS,
PROVIDING FUNDS THEREFOR AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
On section 2 on the said article defines the automated election system as:
A system using appropriate technology for voting, counting, consolidating, canvassing,
transmission of election results and other processes in the conduct of electoral exercises.
Equipments or components that are being used for Automated Election:
1. Counting machine - a machine that uses an optical scanning mark-sense reading
2. Data storage device - a device used to electronically store counting and device of any similar
advanced technology to count ballots; canvassing results, such as, memory pack or diskette;
3. Computer set - a set of equipment containing regular components, i.e., monitor, central
processing unit or CPU, keyboard and printer;
4. National Ballot - refers to the ballot to be used in the automated election system for the
purpose of the May 1998 elections. This shall contain the names of the candidates for
president, vice-president, senators and parties, organizations or coalitions participating under
the party-list system;
This ballot shall be counted by the counting machine:
5. Local Ballot - refers to the ballot on which the voter will manually write the names of the
candidates of his/her choice for member of the House of Representatives, governor,vice-
governor, members of the provincial board, mayor, vice-mayor, and members of the city
municipal council.
6. Board of Election inspector - there shall be a Board of Election Inspectors in every precinct
composed of three (3) regular members who shall conduct the voting, counting and recording
of votes in the polling place.
Many questions and complains arise from this issue such as:
How reliable can be the automated election system be?
Some people said that anything that is being done through computerized would be
easier to falsify.
In the side of indigenous people it would be hard for them to vote if the election will be
done automatically because some of them are illiterate.
Advantages of the system to this coming 2010 election:
There will be no ballot box snatching as the ERs are transmitted electronically for canvassing
There is less work for the Board of Election Inspectors (BEI)
If all precincts are connected, national results can be produced within one hour after the close
of voting
There is automated tally of votes at the city/municipal level
The DRE can include an automated voter validation system
Canvassing at the city/municipal and provincial levels is almost instantaneous
There is an instantaneous tally of votes at the precinct level
Ballots are pre-printed and voters simply mark choices
Incoming Philippine Elections Pros and Cons of Automation
The whole system itself will be more gullible to sabotage and nationwide fraud, in which
the country is not proud to have a colorful background of. Certain methodology of
nationwide cheating in the elections will be a lot easier compared when it is manual. In a
simple click or push of a button it is possible to completely alter the results in favor of a
specific party. The sacred votes will be treated as data flowing through the air, which in this
states becomes gullible and easy to manipulate especially in today's advancement in
technology.
Smartmatic--the official company responsible for automation--did a great job in designing
the machines but it is not full proof. I may say it is a little disappointing. I applaud their
design of incorporating back up plan in case of sabotage, nationwide blackout and other
events but the ballot itself worries me. Their campaign ion educating the voters about the
proper way of voting may be effective yet it is not enough. I hate to say it, but there will
always be a small percentage of voters who will be intimidated about the system that they
may not vote anymore because frankly the ballot is very complicated and sensitive. And
there is another part of the system which may never both because of their inability to do
so.
****It will make the elections faster because machines are a lot faster than human, but
humans are more efficient than machines.**** The point here is we should watch for the
balance of speed and efficiency to determine the election's transparency.
POINTS:
1.The automation will be our milestone towards technological advancement and probably political
transparency.
OPINION:
The whole system of automation maybe a breakthrough in our society but it is not a full proof plan.
We should keep our eyes open for sabotage because of our history. We should protect the
election and keep its sacredness.
SUPER KADUPER!!!!! XD
A SECOND LOOK ON
THE 2010 PHILIPPINE
AUTOMATED ELECTIONS
By Romeo Cayabyab
“Such success (of the 2010) elections is a credit to the hard work of Comelec and Smartmatic
as well as the commitment of the people of the Philippines toward increasingly transparent
elections. . . The creation of a comprehensive election law encompassing the amendments
regarding electoral technology would improve the transparency and efficiency of future election
processes.†�
In short and reading between the lines of the Carter report, the 2010 automated elections were not
transparent enough, nor efficient. On these conclusions and on other recommendations presented
by the Carter Center, GFN fully agrees.
The Carter Center recommended the following steps which according to it were aimed to
improve transparency and efficiency of the automated election system (AES):
That the Commission of Elections (Comelec) and its board of election inspectors (BEIs)
increase their technical capacity in administering polls using automated election system;
1. That the election calendar provides adequate time for implementation of all stages of
automation;
2. That pre-election testing in a real-world setting is conducted at an earlier date to ensure
adequate time to correct any issues identified;
3. That there is a third-party certification authority to generate the public and private keys
used in result transmission;
4. That procedures are amended to ensure secrecy of the ballot;
5. That measures to increase security meet their ends;
6. That the number of polling stations are expanded and larger clustered precincts are
divided to minimize delays in the voting process;
7. That the process and quality of random manual audit is improved; and
8. That the participation of candidates and political parties in pre-election testing of the
AES is increased.
For the Carter Center to make these recommendations, it must have found the AES
wanting, if not defective.
The Carter Center and GFN Observations: Side by Side
Going over my notes, here are some points where the Carter Center and GFN reports and
observations meet:
1. Technical capacity of Comelec and BEIs in administering the AES
On national televisions, in media conferences, in a foreign observers’ briefing on May 6, 2010,
and even during the first day of national canvassing of votes at the PICC on May 11, 2010,
Smartmatic and Comelec officials were like inseparable twins, so to speak, with a Smartmatic
officer mostly taking the lead as a spokesperson.
It is no wonder that in its report, the Carter Center observed, “While the unfamiliarity of the
AES required significant input and oversight from Smartmatic in 2010, in future elections
COMELEC, as the legally mandated election management body of the Philippines, should seek to
increase its capacity to oversee the technical aspects of the process. Smartmatic officials often
conducted press interviews and voter education efforts, responsibilities more clearly mandated as
Comelec’s…†�
2. No pre-election testing of AES
The Carter Center report recommends that “adequate time†be allowed to conduct “pre-�election testing in a real-world setting†in order to rectify any issues like that which required all�
76,000 compact flash cards to be reconfigured due to an error detected one week before election
day.
We agree that Comelec ran out of time to test the AES, however the issue of pre-election testing is
more related to non-compliance with the legal requirements.
In our GFN report, we wrote that the AES was implemented live without the appropriate field
testing, and law-specified testing in actual elections.
The field tests are specified by Sec 6 of RA 9369, “for the regular national and local election,
which shall be held immediately after effectivity of this Act (in 2007), the AES shall be used in at
least two highly urbanized cities and two provinces each in Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao …†� and “In succeeding regular national or local elections, the AES shall be implemented
nationwide.†�
We also highlighted in our report that there are specifications set out in the Bid Specifications,
Annex E which required that as many field tests shall be conducted until the requirements for the
tests have been satisfied provided that the tests shall not go beyond December 5, 2009. The Bid
Specifications also required tests of live transmission of precinct results.
“No such tests were conducted by December 5, 2009. In fact, a precinct test using 10 sample
ballots were conducted in selected precincts starting in February 2010,†we wrote in the GFN�
report.
“No field tests in an entire municipality, city and even province were conducted. This is further
aggravated by the fact that 4,690 polling centers have no cell phone signal from
telecommunication firms affecting about 5 million registered voters.
“Worse, on May 3, seven days before elections, Comelec and Smartmatic discovered
malfunctioning of Compact Flash cards with erroneous votes for local elections. They hurriedly
imported new ones and reconfigured all 76,340 CF cards for use on May 10.†�
3. Digital signatures in transmitting election returns removed
The absence of a third party who should be charged with generating the public and private keys in
the digital signatures to be used in transmitting results was highlighted by the Carter Center.
We agree on that point. The lack of an independent third party in generating encryption keys was
a basic and fundamental system flaw.
What made that worst was that the requirement for digital signatures in transmitting results was
actually abandoned. No one can doubt that with no digital signatures, the risk of falsifying election
returns was very high.
The importance of digital signatures in maintaining data integrity and security had been
recognized, in fact, by enabling RA 9369 (Sec 19A) when it prescribed thus:
“Within one hour after the printing of the election returns, the chairman of the board of election
inspectors or any official authorized by the Commission shall, in the presence of watchers and
representatives of the accredited citizens’ arm, political parties/candidates, if any, electronically
transmit the precinct results…†and “The election returns transmitted electronically and digitally�
signed shall be considered as official election results and shall be used as the basis for the
canvassing of votes and the proclamation of a candidate.”
The importance of digital signatures cannot be overemphasized.
As highlighted in our report, digital signatures serve two purposes, namely, to identify the BEI
personnel and the precinct number from which the election returns came, and to ensure that the
precinct election returns are not modified in any way by dagdag-bawas.
4. System security measures to protect the integrity of AES were abandoned
In addition to the legally required digital signatures in transmitting election returns being set aside,
critical AES security features were abandoned or disabled.
Ultra violet reading function disabled: The UV-reading functionality of the PCOS machine to
authenticate a ballot was disabled, and replaced with a hand-held UV lamp. We also noted during
our observation of election proceedings in selected Pampanga precincts the BEIs were not
provided with UV lamps.
Voter paper audit trail removed: The requirement for voter verified paper audit trail to ensure that
the machine registered the voter’s choice correctly was not complied with. Voter was only
notified in the PCOS screen that his/her vote is read. Only the
word “CONGRATULATIONS†�was shown in the PCOS LCD.
The Carter Center also raised these security deficiencies in its report.
5. Possible disenfranchisement of voters due to delays in the voting process
The Carter Center noted in its report, “In 2010, the number of polling stations was reduced to
76,347 in an effort to reduce costs so that each precinct could have its own PCOS machine. The
reduction of polling stations by approximately 75 percent produced a corresponding increase in
the number of voters per station… a sizable increase from the approximately 200 voters per
precinct in previous elections… As a result, Carter Center observers noted significant congestion
in polling centers… This congestion caused long waits for voters throughout the country, often
longer than three hours. “
GFN observers agree with the Carter Center observation that the clustering of more than 320,000
polling stations into 76,000+ clustered precincts contributed to delays in the voting process.
In addition to the Carter group’s observation, we also noted that (a) the actual process of
notifying the voters where their new precinct is located caused not only delays but also confusion
among the voters, and (b) the delays and long wait could have impacted on the result of the
elections.
Here is an extract of the GFN report:
“Voters Lists were posted on the walls outside the clustered precincts (with a maximum of
1000 registered voters) only on voting day.
“Although precinct assignments were mailed to individual voters by barangay captains, most
received theirs late in the voting day or not at all. Voters have great difficulty in locating and
identifying their clustered precincts. Long queues developed with voters waiting several (from one
to six) hours before voting. As a result, many, especially women and the elderly, decided to forego
voting.
“Comelec’s consultant on queue management estimates the number of disenfranchised voters
to range from 2 million to 8 million.
“This number can easily affect the results in the presidential, vice presidential and senatorial
race especially the close one.†�
6. Non-Compliant Random Manual Audits
On the following assessment of RMAs from the Carter Center, we totally agree:
“A lack of transparency and a general inefficiency in how officials actually administered and
conducted audits plagued the postelection audit process, however. While random manual audits
were to occur on election night, in practice, results of such audits were in some cases still
unknown weeks after the election.†�
The legislative basis for random manual audits is found in Sec 24 of RA 9369, “Where the
AES is used, there shall be a random manual audit in one precinct per congressional district
randomly chosen by the Commission in each province and city. Any difference between the
automated and manual count will result in the determination of root cause and initiate a manual
count for those precincts affected by the computer or procedural error.†�
The difference referred to in RA 9369 is defined in the Bid Bulletin Specifications thus,
“Component 1B-PCOS Machine – 10. The system shall count the voter’s vote as
marked on the ballot with an accuracy of at least 99.995%â€.�
Clearly, only a maximum 0.005% is considered by law as an acceptable error rate.
At 12 noon of election day, Comelec raffled the RMA precincts from the 76,340 precincts
nationwide but the choice of the RMA precincts was made public only after the close of voting.
As it happened, the RMAs and the rigid specifications for tolerable error contained in RA 9369
were good only on paper.
In our interim report, we wrote “As observed in Pampanga, the RMA (Random Manual Audit)
in one precinct in Telabastagan was started at 8pm election day and the results were not
disclosed to the observers. The results of 30 RMA precincts were released and announced as of
15 May 2010. Last 20 May, Comelec announced results of about 300 RMA precincts were
completed with few discrepancies. PPCRV and Comelec announced some 0.07% discrepancies in
about 400 ERs audited as of 21 May. No target completion was announced.†�
GFN observers asked: If the 400 ERs audited disclosed a 0.07% discrepancy, how much more
discrepancy could be expected for the rest of the 76,340 ERs? And in precincts where
discrepancies were found to be outside the tolerable error rate, were manual counts carried out to
comply with the legal requirements of a manual count?
Additionally, why did Comelec municipal, provincial and regional officers refuse to show the results
of the random manual audits even to election observers claiming that they could not provide
copies of the audits because they were in sealed envelopes and they had no copies?
In summary,
There is no doubt that there had been a noticeable improvement in the peace and order aspects of
the elections compared to past national elections.
But actions on the part of Comelec ~ which to a large extent had also been highlighted by other
observers group like the Carter Center ~ had put to question the authenticity, integrity,
confidentiality, veracity and accuracy of the vote counts in the ERs.
The dark cloud rose from disabling critical, legally-specified security features, particularly the
digital signatures in transmitting election returns, the UV scanners in authenticating ballots, and
the voter verification audit trail in ensuring that the voter’s choice had been correctly registered
by the machine.
These pre-election system modifications and inadequate system testing, coupled with the last
minute rush to reconfigure and redistribute nationwide more than 76,000 compact flash cards due
to an error detected one week before election day plus the unnecessary delays and long wait on
election day for voters to cast their ballot which could have translated to at least 2 million voters
being disenfranchised, had practically reduced next to zero whatever confidence was left in us in
the integrity of AES.
Even the post-election proceedings which could have given the elections a semblance of integrity
were rendered questionable. The data that Comelec showed the public were the percentages of
precincts reporting – which were meaningless – and not the actual votes tallies. The
consolidation of the RMA reports took almost two weeks to complete – prompting the impression
that they were “Random Manual Edits†and, even then, the consolidated results fell short of�
the minimum threshold mandated by law.
To date after two years, the legitimacy of the 2010 elections remains a contest and a big question
mark.
(All rights reserved.)
Will Automated Elections in the Philippines Increase Public Confidence?
Share on email Share on facebook Share on twitter Share on google Share on digg Share on
delicious More Sharing Services Share
May 5, 2010
By Tim Meisburger
In the past, Philippine elections have frequently been marred by allegations of widespread
cheating and other electoral malpractice. The most famous (or perhaps infamous) method of
cheating is called dagdag/bawas (add-subtract), when votes are subtracted from the opposition
candidate and added to a favored candidate, and vice versa.
Concerns over election credibility have been exacerbated by the typically long period between
voting and the official announcement of results. Delays were caused in part by an antiquated
polling procedure that required voters to remember candidate names and write them on a ballot
paper, leaving polling officials to decipher the handwriting of all voters, including some less than
fully literate, all the while dealing with complaints from watchful party officials who were “certain”
that the illegible scrawl was a vote for their candidate.
A local woman examines a mock ballot during a voter education seminar on the new automated
technology.
Increasing public frustration prompted the Philippine government to propose in the mid-1990s that
the polling process be automated to decrease cheating and simplify polling and vote-counting.
Some supported this because they believed automation would serve as an effective check on
cheating, while others saw modernization as a means to finally do away with the infamous write-in
ballot process.
After several false starts, automated elections were finally tested in the 2008 Autonomous Region
in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) elections. The tests were generally viewed as successful (although