Eight reasons why adopting a hybrid system will hurt the Philippines’ democracy

After eight years of increasing automation of the voting system in the Philippines, 2018 is marking a distressing period for potential regression -from the technological and political perspectives- for the Filipino people. A group of former and current lawmakers is pushing for the use of a new hybrid election system for the 2019’s polls.

What is the hybrid voting system?

The proposed Precinct Automated Tallying System (PATaS) consists of a semi-automated voting process. It combines manual voting and counting in polling precincts, and automated canvassing through electronic transmission of election returns. The fundamental difference between the hybrid proposal and the current automated election system (AES) is that PATaS calls for manual counting -bringing back all the consequences inherent to manual elections. After voting, the manually-tallied election returns (ER) are encoded into a computer which transmits the information electronically to a canvassing center.

The hybrid system was already tested in June 2015. According to one of the proponents, “going back to manual counting of votes would be more transparent than an automated system. However, instead of returning to a fully manual system, the Commission on Elections (Comelec) can adopt a hybrid system where the results will be transmitted following a manual count.”

However, during the end-to-end demonstration at Bacoor National High School Annex in Cavite province, the system proved unreliable and inefficient. Poll observers noted some issues and problems. They found the manual counting process was inconveniently slow and confusing, for poll workers, voters, and political representatives. Some of the observers labeled the experience as “miserably unsuccessful to even closely match the advantages of a fully-automated election.” The experts agreed that moving back to manual counting, as implied under the hybrid system, would be a significant setback.

Election technology experts have voiced at least eight reasons why reverting to manual counting would represent a dangerous step towards the weakening of democracy in the Philippines.

Manual voting, an unfortunate regression
The hybrid system would mean more people in the precincts just like in the past, and therefore, processes more susceptible to tampering and manipulation.

Slowness increases window of opportunity for fraud
A hybrid system would bring back the long, and time-consuming counting that had plagued elections before the introduction of AES in 2010. One of the clear benefits of the automated system is the speed that allowed Filipinos to know their new leaders before they went to bed on Election Day.

Increased human intervention= increased subjectivity
The hybrid system eliminates one of the most significant benefits of the Philippines’s election technology, its impartiality. By returning to manual counting, those in charge of interpreting the intent of the voter will have comprehensive control to decide what votes are counted (and for which candidates,) and what votes are annulled.

Prone to human error
The hybrid system is prone to human error, whether intentional or not. Poll workers in charge of interpreting manual votes can make a mistake. Also, the equipment used during the canvassing process is operated by people who are likely to succumb to the fatigue of a long Election Day. Traditionally, counting and canvassing occur after 10 hours of voting, when tensions run high, and people are tired. Comelec has experienced (under AES) an accuracy level of 99.995%. This threshold is merely impossible to obtain for a manual count.

Poll workers would be exposed to threats of violence, again 
By expanding the responsibility that poll workers have over the accuracy of results, they become more susceptible to coercion and the target of violence. Given the long history of voter intimidation in the Philippines -and the improvement during the last three elections- going back to manual counting seems like a severe setback.

Increased workforce requirement
Running the hybrid system would require hiring more school teachers and other polling staff for even longer periods of time. In an age of increasing labor cost, going back to manual elections is unsuitable for the EMB. If the hybrid system were adopted, it would require the employment of 900,000 election inspectors for the 100,000 polling precincts. However, there are only 630,000 public school teachers available to take on such a task.

Small parties are at a disadvantage
The fact that it is a poll worker and not an agnostic machine who interprets the paper ballot gives large political parties the capacity to send representatives to all polling stations. This is an advantage over smaller parties. Comelec, an institution that is responsible for leveling the playing field, should avoid the introduction of a system that favors certain parties over minor political groups.

Increase in election costs
The hybrid system does away with the optical scanners, but instead uses a significant number of technology devices (e.g., laptops, projector, scanners, printers) in each polling center. Regarding technology, savings would be minimal, if they exist at all. Furthermore, by increasing exponentially the human power necessary to run the election, the system will inevitably lead to higher costs. 

What happened with e-voting in Angola?

Photo by Elections 360 via Flickr

The 2012 elections in Angola was marred with a myriad of doubts. Intimidation of opposition candidates, media personalities, election authorities and international observers characterised the political process. The developments portrayed downright electoral fraud, and very few individuals expected free and fair elections.

In recent months news came out that the Spanish Tax Agency fined the company Indra Sistemas S.A. as part of an investigation for the payment of illegal commissions of 2.4 million euros, carried out under the Angolan presidential elections of 2012. Six years later, this investigation has re-open the “Pandora box” of uncertainties surrounding the election process.

Angola’s hope: e-voting

Conventionally, the conditions that facilitate free and fair elections often begin long before Election Day. Nonetheless, within 30 days to the 2012 elections, it was explicit that Angolans were not ready as they could not campaign freely without pressure or intimidation.

The hostility escalated to worrying levels a week toward the election date prompting some patriots and the international community to advice on the postponement of the election date. The electoral body appeared compromised and overwhelmed by the unfolding chaos in the entire circle of national leadership.

The previous election had been associated with widespread rigging and widespread electoral irregularities, which had taken a significant amount of time and financial resources to set strategies in place to curb a repeat. Angolans and the entire continent had been tired of the post-election violence whenever voting concluded with massive uncertainties.

By 2012, Angolans had been psychologically prepared to participate freely in voting for a new National Assembly, and it was going to be their first time to adopt electronic voting. Given that the elections were conducted electronically, there was significant hope for more secure, reliable and transparent ballots, and that post-election convolution would be a thing of the past.

However, when everything seemed wrong with the way campaigns were being conducted, voters saw red flags. The outcome of the elections undermined the independence of the EMB, as most election stakeholders doubted they were free and fair. From massive rigging claims to outright manipulation of results, it appeared the instigation of the electronic voting process was deceiving to the citizens.

Indra’s case

Regarding the election technology provider investigation, the Angolan jurist William Tonet revealed on Radio Despertar, that the company “Indra Sistemas is one of the institutions that had connotations with the Angolan political power that fled taxation in their countries. We had already denounced, in 2012 and 2018, that some companies associated with the government ran engaging in certain types of business. The elections are no longer an act of citizenship and nobility to be a real business.”

Indra organised the logistics of the Angolan presidential elections of 2008, 2012 and 2017.

According to a 2018 investigation in El Confidencial (Spanish outlet), “The Dos Santos regime was always receptive to closing deals with Spanish companies. Indra Sistemas has been one of those companies graced with contracts negotiated without competition or thanks to direct awards.”

The newspaper states that during the organisation of the elections of 2012, “Indra had fictitiously increased by 9.8 million euros the price of the 14 charter planes transporting electoral material to Angola, for the payment of commissions. The 2018 Spanish Tax Agency investigation finally concluded that the unjustified figure was 2.4 million euros, and the matter was settled.”

Until now, it remains unclear all the procedural details in the Angolan 2012 elections. Even if the 2017 general elections had already brought new perspectives to the country, perpetual talks are ongoing to address election integrity. It will continue to be newsworthy how transparency of EMBs and election providers can help spare African nations from imminent post-election chaos.

E-voting in Southeast Asia is growing stronger

In our digital-driven world, technological innovation has become an essential pillar to carry out routine activities as well as to stay updated and at par with others. Elections are one of the many areas where some countries are reaping the benefits technology has to offer.

Three examples in the election field are the registration of voters, the adoption of electronic voting machines, and the use of digital platforms to share and inform election details to stakeholders via SMS, emails, or social networks.

Southeast Asian countries like Malaysia and Singapore currently are global technology hubs. Yet, they have not taken full advantage of it to make election processes easier, more robust, and public friendlier.

Most South Asians[1] and Southeast Asians[2] have historically relied on the traditional methods of elections, i.e. with limited use of technology, and they continue to do so. Voters still must go through dated registration and voting processes, including long queues to manually cast their ballots, and waiting days -or weeks- to get official election results.

India and The Philippines

India in Southern Asia and The Philippines in Southeast Asia, however, have led the train of change on e-voting. For the last decade, voters in both countries have been casting ballots through electronic voting machines, with significant and positive results for Election management bodies (EMB) regarding ease of use, speediness, and efficiency of the voting technology.

According to a recent paper: Independent Electoral Commissions (IECs) for Inclusive, Honest, Orderly, and Peaceful Elections presented at the 25th World Congress of Political Science (July 2018), “The automation of elections in the Philippines despite the numerous organizational and technical issues, had an overall positive effect on public trust in the voting process, and public confidence in the COMELEC. The adoption of an automated election system also triggered institutional changes and improvements in the COMELEC.”

Other countries in the region are following The Philippines and India, and they are starting procedures to upgrade and trial new election technologies. Electronic voting pilots have taken place in Pakistan, Thailand, Indonesia, and Mongolia. While Biometric voting registration has been adopted in Bangladesh, Cambodia, and Nepal.

Social networks help

Let us not forget social media is also inducing voting consciously in the region to a vast extent. People in Southeast Asia are using these networks to convey an array of ideas and perspectives diluting knowledge for others.

Social platforms are acting as a forum to discuss the pros and cons of a candidate or a party contesting elections, helping leaders or candidates to connect with the public, and grasp a trend of public needs and expectations.

Therefore, even if countries in Southern and Southeast Asia are not widely benefitting from election technology just yet, there are some leading examples and several domains in which digital transformation is smoothing the election cycles.

---

[1] Current territories of Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Maldives, Nepal, India, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka form South Asia.

[2] Current territories of Brunei, Cambodia, East Timor, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar (Burma), Singapore, The Philippines, Thailand and Vietnam form Southeast Asia.

How badly were US elections hacked?

After the 2016 elections in the United States, a large number of headlines appeared regarding the supposed intervention of hackers to manipulate the voting system and to change the will of the citizens.

Thousands of web pages spread fake news through social networks and generated misinformation. Today we know that Russian nationals were indicted for conducting an illegal "information warfare" effort to disrupt the 2016 presidential election, possibly distorting the popularity of Donald Trump’s candidacy.

The real impact of such campaigns is hard to measure: recent research on the real effects found that most voters reading such fake news already supported their candidate. In other words, they somehow favored voting for President Trump; or they already were not too enthusiastic to vote for Hillary Clinton.

Besides this media campaign, there were the hacking events against the Democratic National Committee and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. Also, there were attempts to attack state election offices where intruders sought to hack voter registration databases in Illinois and Arizona.

However, there is no evidence to proof that even a single voting machine was hacked. As the article Voting machines in America are reassuringly hard to hack; Voter rolls are not from The Economist points out, “Rigorous software studies and vote counting revealed that there is no evidence of manipulation, change or votes eliminated during the 2016 elections”.

Also, this article from Politico: What we know about Russia’s election hacking states that “Officials from the Department of Homeland Security say they haven’t seen any evidence of digital tampering with election organizations, individuals or systems — though that doesn’t rule out some broader effort to undermine public faith in the U.S. political system or sow unrest”.

Although voting machines were not hacked and not a single vote was changed, Russia might be still trying. “It is 2018, and we continue to see Russian targeting of American society in ways that could affect our midterm elections” Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats stated. Therefore, the US should be seeking to adopt a more secure, accessible and reliable election system – one that can only be achieved through modernization.

One out of three US voters have concerns about the accuracy and reliability of the voting technology used at their polling place, and one out of five Americans who voted in the 2016 presidential contest do not fully trust that the national election results were tabulated accurately. However, they also propose a clear solution: eight out of 10 voters believe that upgrading the nation’s voting technology will strengthen and build trust in future elections –a fact the administration and its commissions should not ignore.

To achieve this, there is not only the matter of modernizing and upgrading the voting systems. All sectors involved (media, government, NGOs) and influencers should debunk the myths that are generated daily by false news that seek to warp democracy in the United States. By the way, here an Expert advise on how to fight fake news.