From
the PCIJ:
WHILE acknowledging that automation has a role to play in modernizing our elections, which remains a pitiful throwback from the first-ever held local polls in Bulacan more than a century ago, local information technology pioneer Roberto Verzola thinks the real problem does not lie with having an antiquated electoral system but with the fact that the cheats don’t get punished at all.
“They are blaming the manual system as the cause of cheating or that it makes cheating easy,” Verzola says. “But that is not correct. The system can be slow or fast but there will still be cheating unless you punish the cheats.”
In many instances, Verzola says, it is obvious who commits electoral fraud. But since they just get away with their crime, they just keep on doing it. “They even get promoted, occupy the highest positions in this country.”
Since the punishment for electoral cheats is perpetual disqualification from public office, Verzola says punishing them can have the added value of helping cleanse the government bureaucracy of cheats.
Computerization gives a false sense of security that everything will be tamper-proof, he says. “Computerizing the system will not stop them from committing fraud. Once they learn how to, cheats will make use of computers to cheat.”
Another problem with automation is that it will make cheating so much harder to detect and prosecute, says Verzola, pointing to the experience in the U.S. where there are “big issues about cheating precisely because the system is computerized.”
For instance, he cites the ballots that are entered into the counting machines. There is no way, he says, to double-check if the totals actually reflect the true count of the ballots. That is why he recommends that electoral processes at the precinct level should remain manual.
I agree with Robert. We should have removed the corrupting influence of Arroyo a long time ago and jailed all those involved in GLORIAGATE scandal and other election dirty tricks, like Garcillano, Joc Joc Bolante and Ricardo Manapat.
Sabi ni
Joselu:
I don’t think that the problem is about punishing the cheats.
It’s more of having the evidence first to punish them.
if that’s the case, then edsa dos should not have taken place and erap should be re-installed na lang, because the evidence and chavit testimony against erap was much more inferior and less credible than the evidence against GMA and jose pidal.
Sabi ni
Freewheel:
ah, Mr. Roger, you would rather have the Abalos-led Comelec to do the counting manually, eh?
and continue to allow a system that produces the likes of Garci?
yada yada yada...
pero nahuli si garci at arroyo di ba? nabuking ang entire operations ng malacanang, militar, at ng mga rogue COMELEC officials. even before the tapes came out, there were tons of evidence to show na nandaya si arroyo, pero puro "noted" lang ang hirit nina Sec. SiRAULo Gonzales at Sen. Kiko Cuneta.
Dahil mahirap, magastos, at matrabaho kasing mandaya kapag manual ang botohan eh. you need an army of EXPERIENCED dagdag bawas operators just to get the job done, and done right.
But people make errors pagdating sa mga ganitong ka-complex na operations. and the low ranking COMELEC and military officers involved in GLORIAGATE are no different. nagkakamali rin sila.
dapat marunong yung mga taong nautusan na COMELEC operators at military people sa ganitong trabaho, dahil kung hindi… mahahalatang dinoktor ang mga dokumento at hindi nagtutugma ang mga data, katulad nung sinabi ni garci, na “hindi masyadong marunong” raw ang pagpapataas sa boto ang mga heneral at ilang military officers dahil inexperienced sila sa ganitong trabaho.
kaya nga ayaw ng mga kaalyado ni arroyo na ipa-recount ang mga boto nung canvassing eh, dahil mahuhuli ang massive election fraud operation ni arroyo/garci.
the discrepancies between the ERs and COCs results were so obvious (thanks gen. habacon) na bumalik pa ang iilan sa mga GLORIAGATE operators after arroyo was proclaimed winner
just to rectify and correct some of the kapalpakan made by inexperienced dagdag bawas amateurs.
read this too.
so it’s obvious na mas mahirap makalusot sa dayaan kapag manual ang botohan. the problem lang nga is that makapal talaga mukha ng cheater-in-chief at kapit tuko pa rin siya sa pwesto. and all the people who helped arroyo steal the elections are still free.
so IMO, i’m okay with automated machines, as long as the administration and COMELEC that is handling the elections are trustworthy and competent. else, we’d have another hugo chavez situation in the philippines.
kasi automated machines makes counting faster nga, but it also makes cheating and screwing up the elections much much easier too.
Toro comments:
Full automation of the electoral process and punishing the cheats are the best remedy to minimize if not stop election fraud. It is in the slow-count manual system that gives cheaters the opportunity to rig the results. A computerized system allows the swift transmission of results to central office thus minimizing the possibility of tampering. There will always be attempts to tamper results but there are safeguards, as in all computer programs, that can be incorporated into the system and make it easy to detect fraud.
how safe are the so-called "safeguards" anyway kung yung arroyo admin at ang mga arroyo-appointed na COMELEC commissioners at officials nito ang magpapatakbo ulit ng elections natin? if i recall correctly, wala ni isa sa mga responsable sa GLORIAGATE ay nakulong o naparusahan, at mukhang untouchable pa rin sila garci, joc joc, at ricardo manapat (our very awesome na ex-national archives head).
As long as the corrupting influence of arroyo is still there, mahirap magkaroon ng credible na elections dahil alam ng mga (manual or high-tech) na dagdag bawas operators na protektado sila at hindi sila makukulong as long as GMA controls malacanang.
yes, using automated systems makes it easier and faster to count votes. but it also makes it easier to rig or screw up the elections, and so much harder to detect election fraud.
From
David Price:
The whole point of electronics and software is to manipulate information. That makes them great tools for lots of applications, but assuring election integrity is not one of them. If you value your democratic rights, demand your election officials use paper ballots that can be manually recounted and whose physical integrity and chain of custody can be confirmed.
Again, I really can’t emphasize enough how important this could be. As a software developer, I can tell you there are a million ways to sabotage something like this; very bad things happen merely by accident all the time. Trust me when I tell you that you wouldn’t want an absolutely honest programmer anywhere near your election results, let alone ones who may already be complicit in one stolen election.
even blogfather Glenn Reynolds aka instapundit believes that paper ballots are safer and more resistant to fraud than a voting machine.
From
Glenn Reynolds:
A paper ballot encodes lots of useful information besides the obvious. Not only is the information about the vote contained in the form, but also information about the voter. Different colors of ink, different styles of handwriting, etc., make each ballot different. Erasing the original votes is likely to leave a detectable residue. Creating all new ballots with fraudulent votes requires substantial variation among them or the fakery is much more obvious; thats hard work. And destroying the original ballots in order to replace them with fraudulent ones isnt that easy theres a lot of paper to be disposed of, and shredding it, or burning it, or hiding it is comparatively easy to detect. (Protecting the ballots before counting doesnt require fancy encryption, either: just a steel box with a lock, a slot on the top, and a seal.) Whats more, because people are familiar with paper documents, fraud is easy to understand when it occurs. Paper ballots are both robust (resistant to fraud) and transparent (easy to understand). Compare this sophisticated voting technology to that of voting machines. A voting machine captures only the information regarding the vote. Once it has done so, one vote looks like another. Theres no handwriting, no style, no ink, just a simple notation of which candidate was favored. Most voting machines store votes electronically, meaning that if theyre changed, theres no troubling paper residue for fraud-perpetrators to dispose of. And because voting machines are complicated - and because their actual workings are unseen, and often kept secret its much harder for voters, members of the press, and others to identify or understand fraud. Electronic ballots, in other words, are neither robust nor transparent. The fact is, if you could come up with a new technology as simple and resistant to fraud as the paper ballot, people would be pretty impressed.
and from robert verzola:
Computerization gives a false sense of security that everything will be tamper-proof, he says. “Computerizing the system will not stop them from committing fraud. Once they learn how to, cheats will make use of computers to cheat.”
Another problem with automation is that it will make cheating so much harder to detect and prosecute, says Verzola, pointing to the experience in the U.S. where there are “big issues about cheating precisely because the system is computerized.”
For instance, he cites the ballots that are entered into the counting machines. There is no way, he says, to double-check if the totals actually reflect the true count of the ballots. That is why he recommends that electoral processes at the precinct level should remain manual.
so i don't know where you are getting your info na it's "easy" to detect computer election fraud, toto.
like most people, i want a fast count of the votes, and i'd be cautiously in favor of the automated vote counting machines, under normal circumstances. but if arroyo and her comelec are still running the show, then i think it's safer to use paper ballots na lang muna. yes, it's slower, but mas mahirap dayain ito... if you listen to garci detail some of the screwups by the military etc, LOL. kasi you need lots of EXPERIENCED people to make dagdag bawas work on a massive scale eh. and everybody should keep their mouths shut. if somebody screws up, mahahalata ang nakawan.
but i applaud GMA. nahuli na siya at si garci, pero ayaw pa rin mag-resign. kapal talaga.
Previous:
-
How countries like Venezuela steal their electionsUPDATE:
nytimes may 12, 2006David Bear, a spokesman for Diebold Election Systems, said the potential risk existed because the company’s technicians had intentionally built the machines in such a way that election officials would be able to update their systems in years ahead.
“For there to be a problem here, you’re basically assuming a premise where you have some evil and nefarious election officials who would sneak in and introduce a piece of software,” he said. “I don’t believe these evil elections people exist.”
Maybe you haven't been to our country, Mr. Bear.
read this too.
Posts
