My comments re: The Case for Computerized Elections
Posted by: Fats in: Wika at Hirap > Media WatchI have taken a closer and calmer look into the computerized elections issue and have written replies to the PCIJ Special Feature on Elections 2007 below. Sorry about the previous post, having been quite emotional over the issue when I first read the article by Ruben Canlas. The debates on the electoral process is extremely important and should be taken seriously by all citizens.
My comments re: The Case for Computerized Elections by Ruben D. Canlas, Jr.
PCIJ Special Feature http://pcij.org/i-report/2007/computerized-polls.html
“(Or, If We Can Use Cell Phones to Vote for Stars, Why Can’t We Use Them to Vote for Our Leaders?)”
Why? Because the country’s leadership is not a variety show or a song contest. But some people (especially those in the business of selling cell phones and compuerized voting systems) seem to think otherwise and want us to think otherwise.
“Our electoral system scores very low in the evolutionary ladder, second only to the plastic ballot boxes I recently saw being used in Africa, and voting by a show of hands.”
An MIT/Cal Tech study done in 2001 shows that manually counted paper ballots are the most accurate system out of the 5 systems used in the last 4 presidential elections. They are totally verifiable, and first-world nations across the globe still use them, including Canada which counted their last presidential election in four hours. (from http://why-war.com/news/2003/10/25/abriefhi.html)
“Last April, the commission even caused ripples in the global geek ecology when it invited hackers all over the world to try breaking into the Internet voting system, which runs from July 10 to 30.”
No hacker will take this bait. If a hacker/cheater wants to compromise the system, he/she will do it on election day.
“In contrast, in an electronic process, computerized ballots and returns can be embedded with encryption keys that give off a warning signal when they have been compromised. The Comelec could also opt to publish the process on the Web. Citizens could then visit the site to independently check the results. They could review electoral returns in their precinct and even their own ballot (by entering a personally registered password).”
No amount of encryption can protect votes from the most basic of problems that can happen with computerized systems: software programming errors, and power shutdowns. A denial-of-service attack can put a server down, and a crashed Meralco cable (accident or otherwise) can keep you from voting, checking your votes on the website.
And there are ways of rigging ALL methods of voting: the paper ballot system, the lever machines, the punch card system. But the most sophisticated rigging can only take place with computerized systems. Why? Because you can rig much more votes at once. That’s what computers are good at: the processing of millions of data in an instant.
How? See Bev Harris, BLACK BOX VOTING. Chapter 5. “Cyber-Boss Tweed. 21st Century Ballot-Tampering Techniques.”
“Instead, government could have preferred to use Free and Open Source Software (FOSS). FOSS will cost a fraction of the price tag of a patented system. It will also allow many techies to join in the process, check the software for security holes, and patch it efficiently and at less cost to the government.”
Even with FOSS, computerized voting systems are the least transparent of the various other methods of voting. Within the current paper ballot system, it takes no special technical training to see that there is something unusual going on in every step of the voting process, from casting of ballots to hand counting. But with computerized systems, recognizing vote fraud will need special training. So, if, as the author says, “cheating already exists in our election culture, whether technology is there or not”, then why should we change to a technology that only makes cheating more invisible? Why should we change to a computerized system that only makes the process of proving fraud more difficult?
The author says: “In fact, we can use the strengths of computers to solve the most persistent headaches we always face during elections: slow count, high costs, miscommunication, and recurring human error.”
Then I see no need for computerized voting because all these “persistent headaches” can be addressed with the current paper ballot system. Speeding up counting should NEVER be taken as an excuse for lesser transparency and taking the electoral process itself (and not just the computer code!) more and more away from public scrutiny. Why should I want to have a candidate declared a winner as quickly as two days when that means taking away my right to see the ballots actually being cast and the counting and canvassing actually done by people on the ground?
I prefer that, as is happening now, vigilant citizens are protesting what they see as vote fraud in their various precints, cities and regions. Our right as citizens go beyond simply casting the vote; we need to guard our vote all the time and that is our duty. Watching the COUNTING PROCESS is our pleasure, and that should never be taken away from us.
“Let’s be clear on one thing. In the real world - as it is in the electronic world - nothing is absolutely secure. … The same reasoning applies to the digital world: we can conduct electronic transactions with an acceptable degree of security and risk.”
So, what is the argument for computerized elections other than the interests of our business and political fascists?
Fatima Lasay
korakora.org
PS. Computerized / automated voting systems should be declared illegal because they hide the crucial counting process from public view, when law deems that vote counts should be public and open.
