Christian Monsod And Other Doubting Thomases

One must find it healthy to know that a former COMELEC Chairman in the person of Christian Monsod has expressed serious concern over whether the full automation for 2010 would make the election clean, fair and honest. Perhaps, there may be any number of other doubting Thomases who share the view that there is no absolute certainty at all that safeguards against cheating would have been put in place – foolproof, that is.

What Monsod is trying to zero in are two of such concerns – one, that no such system has yet been tested on a nationwide scale and two, the matter of having to trust the software installed in the computer system by a private vendor. In other words, complicity between the government and that of a private vendor would not be far remote a possibility if it becomes the desire of the ruling administration to frustrate the sovereign will – hook or crook. 

But people will tend to cast doubt on Monsod since he himself is known to have proposed of this full automation back when he was COMELEC chair in 1992. And he just cannot let go off with his apprehension that the outcome of full automation would be fair. Be that as it may, let us listen to reason.

Certainly, Monsod is of the observation that in the past, there had been delays in the conduct of local and national election in so far as vote counting and canvassing of votes are concerned. These, in fact, require so many days of work thus opening doors for every kind of cheating initiated largely by corrupt politicians.

Under a full automation, Monsod still has some misgivings that it will yield results that are clean and acceptable as when he said – “There is no system in the world that is foolproof.” In fact, if rather surprisingly, Monsod already has some doubts on the system as it might in fact cause massive disenfranchisement of voters in a possible situation that the computer system fails to recognize the election forms filled by voters. If votes become forfeited, naturally there will be a flood of electoral protests that will ensue.

Perhaps, no less than a full-blown discussion ought to commence as early as now to make assessment or evaluation of the system proposed to be installed by the COMELEC in order to allay fears of some quarters who do not happen to trust that the election will be one that is clean and honest but rather, that it will again be rigged. For good reason, everyone reserves the right to suspect it to be so.

In fact, Monsod thinks that the seeming success of the automated system in the case of the 2008 ARMM elections is not enough to guide the 2010 elections via fully-automated system even while the two technological systems then used appear to have been properly undertaken – the Direct Recording Electronic technology as well as the Optical Mark Reader technology. Certainly, it is clear that Monsod would prefer the latter to the former based on his own experience.

There is reason to echo the concerns of Monsod if only so, 2010 would be the first case of a national election that reflects the true and sovereign will of the people or the governed. Less than clean, honest and fair, those who will be elected with the aid of a questionable monster that is – full automation – might usher us to a new government the legitimacy of which can be a walk to the funeral.

There seem to be no cautions thrown in the air so yet despite determined moves toward full automation come 2010. So far, we appear to have heard that of Mr. Ike Senerez who came out to challenge that the COMELEC automated voting system be tested by his little army of hackers – a one-hour show of genius how any system will fail. But can Malacanang welcome that challenge, pray tell?

People just cannot be too complacent borne out of their ignorance on how full automation works. We dare not forget that full automation does in fact offer the widest possibility of options if one decides to cheat than if one decides not to. In other words, we cannot compromise speed for the sacred expression of our sovereign will. We cannot just believe as gospel truths the seeming popular belief of a dangerous myth.

Those in the know sure sense where Senerez or Monsod is coming from. Or let us please state some points on the potential of fraud through various types of electronic means.

The three more commonly known types of electronic election fraud are the following:

1. vote switching,
2. central tabulator mediated fraud, and
3. voter registration purging fraud.

First one simply means that if a voter votes for Politician A, the system registers a vote to Politician B instead. This switch of vote is not one to be noticed by the voter more especially so since it does not produce a paper with the vote in it. One can just imagine what any number of vote switching machines can do in a whole day when say it can generate a vote ratio in the oblique. Second, in a central tabulator mediated fraud, the sum of votes within a given range ought to match with those from the precints, otherwise fraud or innocent mistake must have occurred. Third, voter registration purging fraud is that type where voters’ names are illegally erased from the rolls which opens occasion of possibly unreasonable increase in new voter registration resulting to a discrepancy in that the number cannot match official source. If we speak here in terms of net losses, the fraud can bring incredible peril.

What we should worry about even hate is when fraud that cannot be detected as it leaves no trace or can in fact erases all its traces might be taken as an option. In fact, it should be an assault to democracy a situation where the public cannot possibly have a way of knowing or checking whether their votes were truly counted in to the candidate(s) they have voted for. Thus, concerned individuals and well-meaning sectors must now be taken to task or it will be late. The anti-electronic fraud movement must be born
now – or never.

Point is, if this 2010 elections under so-called automated voting system will come to pass and fraud that should have otherwise been detected will not raise eyebrows, then future elections will be more of the same. Let us see to it that this 2010 election will truly be transparent with all the safeguards put on it. We must tend away from the possibility that the one who holds the key to whatever might be a secret software injected into the computer veins is in fact an invisible monster preying upon us.

Please, there shall not be fraud of any electronic kind that will be permitted to occur come 2010. The mode of voting, however fully automated, must give back a paper ballot to the voter in case recount is necessary.  Absent that, we are finding ourselves in a dangerous gambit of untold consequences. Can voters unite? In the end, it might just end up this way – “If the hand is quicker than the eye, the lady wins, where could the lady be?” – in a simple game of hocus pocus. So-called AVS (automated voting system) can prove to be even more sophisticated, can’t it?

Popularity: 1% [?]