Automation in Kenya: a hurried implementation is never a good idea

Image: EveryStockPhoto

Although it is true that automation solves many problems in the electoral field, this does not mean that just about any e-voting system will work. Taking the leap to automation requires a close examination of the potential providers, and one of the main aspects to keep in mind for choosing one is the provider’s experience. Kenya’s electoral blunder serves as an example why.

As mentioned on an earlier post, the bout of violence Kenya endured in 2007 prompted the country to hastily adopt an electronic voting system. The Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) set up an election’s results transmission system based on SMS that was meant to speed up the final stages of the electoral process and enhance security. Biometric authentication was also incorporated into the modernization process. This year’s election was expected to be the most modern in Africa and beyond.

However, this new platform proved to be no better than the manual method from earlier years. Kenyans’ fears of a new round of chaos materialized when every single stage of the automated process failed. First of all, the conditions under which elections were generally held in the country were not taken into account. As a result, not even the most basic of requirements for automation, electricity, were available, as some of the classrooms used as polling stations were not equipped with power sockets.

Then the biometric authentication kits failed to recognize voters’ fingerprints, forcing officials to turn to paper records and manual registration to carry on with the election and slowing down the electoral process considerably. As if this were not enough, the server employed to transmit results to the central tallying center from 33,400 polling stations became overloaded and crashed, and the electoral body had to revert to manual counting. Safaricom, the communications supplier hired for this final stage, had advised IEBC to hold a large-scale drill before going live, but the electoral body disregarded the recommendation with dire consequences. In the end, the announcement of Uhuru Kenyatta’s victory took place over a week after the elections.

It is commendable that a country wants to resort to e-voting to stop fraud and make its elections more agile and transparent. However, automation is a very delicate procedure that is prone to failure when not carried out properly. There are many points where Kenya’s providers incurred in negligence and aggravated an already fragile democracy. The lack of previous infrastructure studies and the lack of drills and pilot tests in minor electoral events are amongst the most serious mistakes made by the e-voting providers. In short, Kenya’s botched election was an example of sheer improvisation.

Electronic elections in the Philippines, Brazil, and Venezuela have been successful because their providers have been conscious of the need to analyze a country’s infrastructure and idiosyncrasy before incorporating automation into its electoral system. The implementation process in these countries has been gradual and supported by numerous pilot tests and audits, thus being able to offer smooth elections that gain people’s trust in the new technology. The urge for automation cannot win over the urge for an electoral system that works.

Kenya’s electoral catastrophe is a lesson for other countries to learn: When it comes to modernizing a country’s electoral platform, there is no room for haste.

How Internet Voting challenged the Oscars

Photo: Miss Karen

As we mentioned on an earlier post, this year’s Academy Awards have been used lately as a cautionary tale against the implementation of Internet voting in precinct voting. So what’s the story of this blunder, and why has it become so significant for larger elections? The damages are weightier than you might think. 

Big productions like “Les Miserables” or “Lincoln” were expected to be favored this year, as had been the case traditionally. However, 2013 unexpectedly opened the doors to independent and foreign movies such as “Beasts of the Southern Wild” and the French “Amour.” This happened not because of a sudden change of mind from the Oscar committee, but because of the new electronic platform that had been adopted for the election. It was denounced that the older members of the Academy—a vast majority—were altogether unfamiliar with the platform and therefore had great difficulty casting their ballots. The Academy moved the voting deadlines, but it failed to provide proper training to these baffled voters. The effect was a list of nominees made of votes that were initially associated to the younger voters’ thinking, and to how these young voters had been able to understand the new system.

However, it surfaced later that even the younger members had problems voting due to a terribly faulty Internet Voting platform. By then, though, it was already too late to recall the results.

At first glance, this looks like a minor mishap, even a welcome one for pop culture. After all, the public would definitely want to see a more progressive Academy instead of watching the same blockbusters win over and over again. However, no matter how positive the result seemed, the fact is that most of the Academy members had been disenfranchised. This does not mean that electronic voting shouldn’t have been implemented altogether, but that the implementation of electoral technology should have been gradual and inclusive, and the Academy failed to accomplish both aspects. Not to mention that the most important poll in the world of cinema was handled with an online voting system of substandard quality.

It goes without saying that a reliable e-voting platform is easier to use than any manual electoral method, and certainly easier than a botched online-based system, which is why blaming the failure to cast an e-ballot on old age is terribly irresponsible. The liability clearly lies on the authorities in charge of its implementation. Not only is it important to know how to choose a proper electoral technology platform, but it is also vital to instrument it gradually in order for everyone to understand it. It does not matter whether the implementation is for small elections, as was the case with the Oscars: a slow immersion with drills and active participation from the electorate defines the success or failure of an automated election. 

When it comes to elections, no matter their scale, choosing an adequate technology is key. It is the duty of the authorities in charge to make sure the electoral platform employed is actually useful, so that nobody is left behind. There are no excuses.