Published, Manila Times Online
Introduction
While we are still almost three years away from the 2019 elections, it is, in fact, the best time to start planning for it.There are very valid reasons why it has to be started this early. Many observers, IT practitioners, mostly, have been commenting that the system used in 2010, 2013, and 2016 – i.e., Smartmatic’s Precinct Count Optical Scan, or PCOS – while fast, did not, however, meet the required accuracy level, was definitely not transparent, and was very vulnerable to tampering by an insider. All these have been proven to be true.
While we are still almost three years away from the 2019 elections, it is, in fact, the best time to start planning for it.There are very valid reasons why it has to be started this early. Many observers, IT practitioners, mostly, have been commenting that the system used in 2010, 2013, and 2016 – i.e., Smartmatic’s Precinct Count Optical Scan, or PCOS – while fast, did not, however, meet the required accuracy level, was definitely not transparent, and was very vulnerable to tampering by an insider. All these have been proven to be true.
These
failures could all be traced to the fact that the Commission on Elections
(COMELEC), quite apparently, did not go through the standard project analysis
and cost/benefits study before deciding on the system to be used in all three
elections. This important step is a must, especially for major projects costing
billions of pesos.
After
the 2010 elections, the Chairman of the COMELEC Advisory Council (CAC) said in
his report that we should not use PCOS again. The then Chairman of the
Committee on Suffrage and Electoral Reforms in the Lower House, said in his
report that if the loopholes in the PCOS are not plugged, “… a reversion to
manual elections with heightened vigilance by organizations like PPCRV and
NAMFREL would probably yield more credible and accurate results”. Why
Smartmatic continued to win the contracts is something that we fail to understand.
Private companies would have given them the boot long ago.
It
is feared that if nothing different is done this time around, then the same
decisions would be made by COMELEC; the same doubts, from those in the know, on
the system’s unreliability would be generated, the same wasteful spending would
occur.
This
writer proposes to undertake this study, together with the public … and,
hopefully, with the COMELEC as well, if it will so agree to participate.
Through a series of articles in this paper, this writer will present to the
readers the different aspects about elections and the options that we could
take, in order to arrive at the “most appropriate” automated system for our
elections, as required by law. Contributions to the discussion would of course be
appreciated.
We
will begin by reviewing the old, pure manual system, then discuss its defects,
problems, and pitfalls. After that, we will scan the environment for automation
election tools that are currently available, discuss the pros and cons of each,
and then proceed to designing and formulating a workable system.
The pure manual elections
The pure manual elections (no
automated component at all) that we used from our very first election in the
1940s up to 2007 followed a very simple system that required no training of
voters at all. Common sense and the ability to read and write were almost all
one needed. Those who cannot read and write and those with disabilities were
allowed to be assisted by a close relative. Even the Board of Election Inspectors
(BEI) hardly needed any training; most of them only received written
instructions that would come with the usual election paraphernalia distributed
to them a few days before the elections.Here’s how the system works:
Precinct voting and counting
The BEIs man a precinct each. A BEI is composed of three teachers, one of whom is assigned as Chairman and the other two as poll clerks. Approximately 200 voters (maximum of 250) are registered under each precinct. When this system was last used in 2007, there were a little more than 200,000 precincts that opened nationwide.
The BEIs man a precinct each. A BEI is composed of three teachers, one of whom is assigned as Chairman and the other two as poll clerks. Approximately 200 voters (maximum of 250) are registered under each precinct. When this system was last used in 2007, there were a little more than 200,000 precincts that opened nationwide.
The
election process consists of stages – the voting period, the vote-counting, the
transport of the ballots and results of counting, referred to as Election
Returns (ERs), and the three-level canvassing – municipal, provincial, and
national consolidation of votes.
The
voting period would start at 7:00 AM and close at 3:00 PM. The BEI, however,
would start working as early as 5:00 AM in order to prepare the classroom and
the election materials for the voters’ registration and actual voting. As many
as 15-20 voters would usually be allowed to vote simultaneously or as many as
could be comfortably accommodated inside the classroom. Even as the voting
closes at 3:00 PM, all voters making up a queue of up to 30 meters long, would
still be allowed to vote.
After
a brief rest following the close of the voting period, the BEI would start
counting the votes. The first step would be for the Chairman to count all the
ballots inside the ballot box. Once done and the count recorded, the Chairman
would start reading off aloud, the candidates’ names written on each ballot.
One of the members would record the votes into the Election Returns using
“taras” (or sticks), while the third member would record the same votes into
the Tally Boards that are taped or stapled to the walls of the classroom.
When
all the votes have been read and recorded, the BEI would then add up the total
votes garnered by each candidate in both the Election Returns and the Tally
Boards, making sure that both reports have the same totals. The BEI would then
complete the Minutes of the proceedings, sign all the forms, then pack the
documents for transport to the canvassing center.
The
BEIs of the precints in a polling center (usually, a school) would normally
share a jeepney, or jeepneys, when transporting the ballot boxes and other
documents to the city/municipal canvassing center. It is also safer for them to
wait for each other, as most of them would finish the counting in the very
early hours of the following day.
In the first installment of
this series of articles, I proposed to re-design an automated election system
for the Philippines, hopefully, with some participation from the readers. The
first step in the process is a discussion of the pure manual system, starting
with (in the first article) the precinct voting, precinct counting, the
transport of the results of such counting, and in this article, the fourth and
final step, which is the three-level canvassing, or consolidation of votes.
(Some people refer to this as “ladderized” canvassing.)
City/Municipal canvassing
In order to arrive at the
winning candidates for mayor, vice-mayor, and councilors in each city or
municipality, the votes garnered by each of the candidates for those positions
in all the precincts in that city or municipality, would have to be
consolidated. This is what is referred to as city/municipal canvassing and this
first level of consolidation is performed by the City/Municipal Board of
Canvassers (CMBOC).
This
Board is composed of the Election Officer or a representative of the Commission
as Chairman; the Municipal Treasurer as Vice-Chairman; and the District School
Supervisor, or in his absence, the most senior Principal of the school
district, as Member. The Board will normally wait for a sufficient number of
Election Returns (ERs) to arrive before it starts its work. This is so the
canvassing work would be continuous and would have a minimum of interruptions
caused by the non-arrival of ERs.
Aside
from the city/municipal positions, the votes of the candidates for national,
provincial, and district level positions are canvassed, as well, to prepare
them for further consolidation at the next two levels of canvassing.
Two forms are used at each level of canvassing:
1) The Statement of Votes (SOV)
– where the total votes garnered by the candidates from each precinct are
entered. The precinct numbers are recorded at the top of the columns. The
columns in the form are filled up as ERs arrive from the precincts. When all
the precinct votes have been recorded into the SOV, totals by candidate are
computed and recorded in figures and in words on the rightmost columns of the
form.
2)
The Certificate of Canvass (COC) – is a summary of the SOV. The total votes per
candidate appearing on the rightmost columns of the SOV (figures and words) are
entered into the COC.
The
COC is then transported to the Provincial Board of Canvassers (PBOC) for
further consolidation.
Provincial canvassing
As in city/municipal
canvassing, in order to arrive at the winning candidates for governor,
vice-governor, members of the provincial board, and district congressmen,the
votes garnered by each of the candidates for those positions in all cities and
municipalities in each province, would have to be consolidated. This is what is
referred to as provincial canvassing and this second level of consolidation is
performed by the Provincial Board of Canvassers (PBOC). (There are some
variations to the procedures on account of multi-district provinces and chartered
cities.)
The
PBOC is composed of the Provincial Election Supervisor or a lawyer of the
Commission, as Chairman; the Provincial Prosecutor, as Vice- Chairman; and the
District School Superintendent, as Member-Secretary.
At
this level of canvassing, an SOV (provincial version) is used to facilitate the
consolidation, except that this time, the columns represent the votes in the
COCs coming from all CMBOCs in the province, instead of, in ERs from precincts
in a city/municipality. Totals by candidate are computed and recorded in
figures and in words on the rightmost columns of the form. A Provincial
Certificate of Canvass (PCOC), which is a summary of the Provincial SOV, is
prepared.
Aside
from the provincial positions, the votes of the candidates for national level
positions are canvassed as well, to prepare them for further consolidation at
the third and last level of canvassing. The PCOCs are then transported to the
National Board of Canvassers (NBOC) for the third and final consolidation of
votes for national candidates.
National canvassing
To arrive at the winning
candidates for president, vice-president, senators, and party-list, the votes
garnered by each of the candidates for those positions in all provinces and
chartered cities (as appearing in the PCOCs), would have to be consolidated.
This is what is referred to as national canvassing and this third and final
level of consolidation is performed by the National Board of Canvassers (NBOC).
The
NBOC is split into two groups of canvassers. The first – a joint Congressional
committee composed of representatives coming from both Houses of Congress –
canvasses the positions of president and vice-president, while the second, the
Commission on Elections (COMELEC) canvasses the positions of senators and party
list.
In
each canvassing center, an SOV (national version) is again used to facilitate
the consolidation, except that this time, the columns represent the votes in
the PCOCs coming from all provinces and chartered cities in the country. Totals
by candidate are computed and recorded in figures and in words on the rightmost
columns of the form. A National Certificate of Canvass (NCOC), which is a
summary of the national SOV, is prepared.
After
the NCOCs are completed, the winning national candidates are proclaimed, thus
ending the election period.
The
pure manual system that I have just described is what the Philippines used from
the first election in 1946 up to the elections in 2007.
Problems in the ‘pure manual system’
In the first two installments
of this series, I discussed how the pure manual system that we used in all
elections from 1946 to 2007, worked. This third installment will discuss the
problems associated with that system, eventually becoming the reason for
automating the process in order to mitigate them.
The
biggest problem in the pure manual system was the many weeks it took to
complete the process and proclaim the winners of the elections. In the last
three decades, it would take more than 20 days before the winners would be
proclaimed. Once, it even took all of 42 days to complete!
It
was not a problem during the country’s election exercises prior to martial law
because the number of registered voters then, even at its highest, was less
than a fourth of what it is today. But the population grew during the 14 years
of martial law, and consequently, so also did the number of registered voters.
Let’s take a look at some historical figures (on Table A are the election dates
while those on the right are the corresponding registered voters during those
years):
The
election period became longer and longer, as the voting population grew. The
increase in the time period was however not caused by the precinct level
activities, as more precincts were simply opened in order to accommodate the
growth in the number of voters. The longer time period was caused by the longer
canvassing activities.
To
explain this further: let’s say that there are one million voters registered
and 5,000 precincts opened to accommodate 200 voters per precinct. Let’s also
assume that it took the precincts an average of eight hours to count the votes
and produce the Election Returns. If the number of registered voters increased
by half-a-million, and the number of precincts was increased by another 2,500,
then presumably, it would still take just eight hours to count all the votes in
all the precincts.
On
the other hand, the increase in the number of precincts by another 2,500 will
proportionately increase the canvassing time at the City/Municipal Board of
Canvassers by 50 percent as there will still be only one Board that will do the
consolidation.
But
there were other reasons that caused the slowness of the process. Before 1992,
local elections used to be run separately from national elections. As such, in
each election, there were fewer positions/candidate names in the ballot that
needed to be counted and canvassed. In 1992, however, the national and local
elections were synchronized and that naturally resulted in an increase in the
number of positions and names in the ballot that needed to be counted and
canvassed. Counting at the precincts and the eventual canvassing therefore took
a much longer time.
And
then, there’s also the inclusion of the party-list candidates. Averaging almost
a hundred candidates in every election, counting and canvassing became even
more cumbersome.
The
long election process caused other problems, too. Big-time cheating became
easier as the delay provided the cheats with sufficient time to do their evil
deeds. Thus, “dagdag-bawas” (literally, add-subtract) came into being. This
occurred at the canvassing levels, particularly at the city/municipal
canvassing and at the provincial canvassing.
The
teachers, who composed the Board of Election Inspectors (BEI), were put at risk
as they would end up going home in the early hours of the following morning. At
that time, they would have put in almost 24 hours of back-breaking work, as
they would have been up since 5 a.m. or earlier on election day.
During
the transport of the ballot boxes and the election returns from the precincts
to the City/Municipal Board of Canvassers, there had been occasions when the
boxes would be hijacked and stuffed with fake ballots, or replaced with
pre-stuffed boxes. Or, simply destroyed.
There
had also been reports that the BEI chairman would sometimes intentionally
misread the ballots, thus favoring certain candidates. This problem was
substantially reduced when political party watchers were allowed to position
themselves behind the BEI as the latter conducts the counting.
Truly,
because of the enormity of the operations, individual problems had become very
difficult to solve. Thus, the automation of the election process became the
“end-all and be-all” solution. Expectations were high. And the general public
believed that such expectations were met. But alas! Those in the know believe
otherwise.
No comments:
Post a Comment