a look at the automated election process

Actually this is mainly a reaction to a whole section of the Philippine Daily Inquirer from March 1 (check section H1-H4). Hopefully Inquirer.net will put up relevant features of this section some time soon.

Top features of this section include:

-A step-by-step description flow of the automated election process: from the time the Board of Election Inspectors opens the PCOS machines up to the sending and processing of results (article by Kristine Alave)

-An article (by Marlon Ramos) about the views of an IT expert Gus Lagman on this scenario: what if the queues on May 10, 2010 prove to be so long that by 6:00pm, a lot of people have not yet voted. Would there be a contingency for this scenario? Or will this mean mass disenfranchisement?

-An article (by Kristine Alave) featuring more IT experts Jaime Garchitorena (of Youthvote Philippines) as well as Jun Lozada, discussing the fears of possible manipulations and bugaboos in the IT program being used for the election.

-A contribution by Winston A. Marbella about the use of surveys in campaigns, and why surveys can end up making the electoral process seem like a horse race (betting on the top runner) as opposed to a matter of dealing with issues.

This section is definitely one for us young voters to consider. For first-timers like me, we happen to be experiencing a double-whammy: first time automated elections during a crucial point (the ending of a 10-year regime). The implications of this scenario are massive

Here follow my reactions, one by one per article

On "Election in the Time of Automation" by Alave : Suddenly this makes the "May bilog na hugis itlog" ad sound so inadequate to describe the electoral process. There are tons of steps before and after the actual shading; all of which will take more than the 2-3 minutes supposedly being allocated per voter. And that is assuming that everyone knows what to do. Perhaps the COMELEC can do a lot more than just mailing sample ballots to the voters; providing better flow of the crowd during election day, or having a manual backup would be a good idea.

Another implication in this article is in the new role of pollwatchers in the automated scenarios. Traditionally, pollwatchers kept track of the tallies ongoing in classrooms and canvassing centers, guarded ballot boxes and made sure that they were delivered safely to the COMELEC authorities. They also kept a lookout for flying voters and other possible dirty tricks in precincts. In an automated scenario, where all the counting and canvassing is done digitally, pollwatchers will have to find other ways to keep up their quick counts. They will have to change the way they watch over the precincts, particularly in their manner of working with the other personnel manning the process. Pollwatchers as of now cannot do much about possible electoral fraud---the possibilities range from hidden programming in the machines, all the way to outright mechanical destruction by dirtying ballots. Pollwatching groups ought to train their volunteers to spot these tricks, without violating the secrecy of the individual ballots.

On "1000 voters to 1 machine in 11 hours not enough"by Ramos and "What Can Go Wrong" by Alave: These articles explore fears regarding several "bangungot"-worthy possibilities come election day, such as mass disenfranchisement, and manipulation of results. Jun Lozada makes a valid point by citing the lack of a system of receipts issued to voters after they put their ballots in the machine. How is anyone to really know that his or her vote was the one truly counted in the machine? Receipts could also be a way to safeguard against flying voters or other possible shenanigans in the precinct. It is surprising that the COMELEC hasn't thought of this yet.

The scenario though of voters not being accommodated by 6pm is even scarier. Now I do wonder if the COMELEC can have a way of monitoring the flow of people in different precincts so as to make any necessary adjustments to allow maximum voter coverage. Otherwise, things could go awry (possible scenarios range from riots among the voters to election results protests). Ideally people would go early to the precinct to get their votes in, but there's no guaranteeing this.

On "When Horse Races Surpass Issues" by Marbella: Ah those surveys: currently a bone of contention even among the intelligentsia. A good friend of mine (an Advertising major) made a good point in saying that surveys should NOT be published during campaign season, since the bandwagon that surveys cause can seriously be manipulated by any campaign-savvy individual to sway the vote. Anyone who's ever done his or her own statistics can enumerate ways to get "desirable" figures: surveying only certain populations, adjusting error levels, skewing distributions, outright elimination of data, etc. And yet our media and campaign personnel STILL insist on using surveys. I agree with Marbella's statement that surveys can reduce the electoral process into being a horse race. It becomes so much easier to back the perceived winning candidates than to back the candidates who will really run the country.

I had a particularly educational evening/cup of coffee while reading this set of articles. Food for thought for the first-timers, as well as seasoned voters. The automated election system have opened up a terra incognita for the Philippine electorate; a land that may just as well be as full of pitfalls as the process we are used to.