We Deserver Better _ Gus Lagman

1,359 views

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,359
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
104
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
45
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

We Deserver Better _ Gus Lagman

  1. 1. Automation of Elections Ano ba talaga ito?
  2. 2. Agenda  Why we need to automate elections  The manual election system  Alternative solutions
  3. 3. Why do we need to automate elections  Process is too long. It takes 25-40 days before national positions can be proclaimed.  To eliminate wholesale cheating, incl. DAGDAG-BAWAS
  4. 4. The Manual Election System
  5. 5. Basic Election-related Data  83 Provinces  200 Congressional Districts  1,600 Cities and Municipalities  40,000 Barangays  250,000 precincts  40M+ voters
  6. 6. Elective Positions National Positions  President  Vice-President  24 Senators (12 elected/3 years)  Party List Local Positions  Congressman  Governor  Vice-Governor  Provincial Board  Mayor  Vice-Mayor  Councilors
  7. 7. Definition of Terms  BEI - Board of Election Inspectors (250,000)  CMBOC - City/Municipal Board of Canvassers (1,600)  PBOC - Provincial/District Board of Canvassers (200)  NBOC - National Board of Canvassers (Comelec/Congress)  ER - Election Returns  SOV - Statement of Votes  COC - Certificate of Canvass
  8. 8. The Manual Election System 1. Ballots tallied by BEI in each precinct and ERs prepared 2. BEIs bring ERs to CMBOCs 3. CMBOCs canvass ERs and prepare SOVs and COCs; bring them to PBOCs 4. PBOCs canvass COCs and prepare provincial COCs and SOVs; bring them to NBOC 5. NBOC (Comelec) canvasses COCs; Congress canvasses Pres/VP COCs
  9. 9. Manual Tallying/Canvassing Time Line 5-12 10 days 20 30 40 hrs CITY / MUNICIPAL, PROVINCIAL AND NATIONAL CANVASSING (25 PRECINCT – 40 DAYS) TALLYING Given the above time line, it becomes obvious, which phase of the election process should be automated.
  10. 10. So now, we want to apply technology in our elections ... 1. to speed up the process and to be able to proclaim the winning candidates earlier; 2. to minimize, if not eliminate, cheating; Ahh … but we have added a third ... 3. to make the election process transparent to the public
  11. 11. Election processes that can be automated  Voters list  Voting  Tallying  Canvassing  Reporting
  12. 12. In automating elections, two issues immediately come to mind:  How do we secure the system?  Which technology should we adopt?
  13. 13. Two ways of securing a system  Fence it in very tightly so no Secure the system, but make a intrusion can ever occur copy of all software and data (security by obscurity). (read only) accessible to all interested parties and to the  However, implementor must public. prove to all interested parties that system is indeed Proof of veracity and accuracy extremely secure. of results becomes automatic.  Not easy to convince all; there will always be doubters. We favor this because it is the transparent alternative.
  14. 14. Features of an ideal automated election system for the Philippines  Automates canvassing  Tight security measures  All steps transparent to the voting public  Software used available to the public  Digital counts and results, in all steps, available to the public (any one can do his own tabulation)  Results quickly verifiable all the way to original source documents  Cost-effective (P4-8 billion, depending on the solution)  Minimum or no training required for >40M voters  Minimum or no storage concerns after each election process  Not dependent on the trustworthiness of the implementors
  15. 15. Alternative election automation technologies 1. DRE (Direct Recording Electronic) System – “touch-screen” 2. OES (Open Election System) - manual voting & counting, and automated canvassing  PC-based data encoding of ERs 3. OES-OMR (Optical Mark Recognition) System – pre-printed ballots, read by OMRs at the voting centers (schools)
  16. 16. Option 1: Direct Recording Electronic System1. 2-4 Units per precinct 9 2. Touch screen, mouse, or keyboard 7 8 3. Voter’s choices printed for audit purposes 4. At end of voting (3:00pm), ER is 6 printed 5. ER transmitted to 5 CMBOC and NBOC 5 6. NBOC transmits data to interested parties 7. CMBOC produces 3 SOV and COC; transmits to PBOC 8. PBOC produces SOV and COC; transmits 4 to NBOC 9. NBOC produces SOV and COC
  17. 17. Direct Recording Electronic System PROs CONs  Instantaneous tally of votes at  Not transparent. Voters will precinct level distrust vote-counting that they did not see (a big issue in  If all precincts connected, the US) almost instantaneous canvass at City/Mun., Prov., & Natl.  Cost prohibitive, estimated at levels; ergo, theoretically, P15-20B (some est. >P30B) national results known 1 hr.  Logistics can be a nightmare after close of voting (750K units to 250K locations)  Less work for BEI  Thousands of technical people  With one printer per precinct, req’d (but where to deploy?) printing of 30 copies of ER at  BEI training staggering precincts is easy  40 Million voters to be trained  No ballot box snatching  Where online connection is unavailable, difficult to secure electronic media (CDs)  After each election, storage of 750K units is major concern
  18. 18. But … wasn’t the automation of the last ARMM election successful?
  19. 19. From Dr. Aviel Rubin’s book, “Brave New Ballot”  “Past performance is no guarantee of future results, especially when it comes to security.”  “Success on a small scale does not guarantee success once the scale of a project is enlarged.”
  20. 20. Besides (and very few people realize this), … The ARMM election is a non-event!
  21. 21. These statements are quite disturbing  quot;DRE was well-received but was seen by some as too expensive. OMR was cheaper but it still requires human intervention.quot;  quot;DRE is suited for areas where there is good infrastructure including electricity and connectivity. OMR is more suitable for rural areas where infrastructure isn't that reliable.quot;
  22. 22. TransparentElections.org
  23. 23. TransparentElections.org  We are NOT vendors of election systems  We are a team of similarly-minded IT practitioners who have implemented election-related projects in the past, using ICT
  24. 24. Option 2: Open Election System 1. Votes cast & tallied as PC Encoding in manual voting 2. ERs brought to school encoding (PC) center 3. ERs validated then posted on the web w/ BEIs digital signature 4. CMBOC will access CITY/MUNICIPAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS PROVINCIAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS NATIONAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS database, produce SOV, COC 5. All interested parties may access and process the data by themselves 6. All interested parties can send SMS to watchers to verify DOMINANT DOMINANT CITIZENS MEDIA & PARTY OPPOSITION ARM OTHERS VOTING CENTER figures 7. PBOCs access DB; produce Prov SOVs and COCs 8. NBOC accesses DB for DOMINANT DOMINANT CITIZENS MEDIA & PARTY OPPOSITION ARM OTHERS ENCODING CENTER PRECINCTS final results
  25. 25. Open Election System PROs CONs  Most transparent - voters and watchers observe tally at  Manual tallying is tedious precinct level  ERs will have to be encoded  No need for voter training  Looking for tens of thousands  Once ER is encoded, result (web of encoders is a challenge database) becomes accessible  Since it’s still manual tallying, to the public public may think that election  Cost affordable at about P2B is not automated (Comelec only buys PCs/servers)  PCs/servers can be passed on to DepEd after each election  No storage concerns, because machines can be passed on to DepEd  Ballot box snatching/switching will not affect results
  26. 26. Open Election System 1. Votes cast & tallied as in manual voting OMR 2. ERs brought to school encoding (OMR) center 3. ERs validated then posted on the web w/ BEIs digital signature CITY/MUNICIPAL PROVINCIAL NATIONAL 4. CMBOC will access BOARD OF CANVASSERS BOARD OF CANVASSERS BOARD OF CANVASSERS database, produce SOV, COC 5. All interested parties may access and process the data by themselves 6. All interested parties DOMINANT DOMINANT CITIZENS MEDIA & can send SMS to PARTY OPPOSITION ARM OTHERS watchers to verify VOTING CENTER figures 7. PBOCs access DB; produce Prov SOVs and COCs OMR DOMINANT DOMINANT CITIZENS MEDIA & PRECINCTS PARTY OPPOSITION ARM OTHERS 8. NBOC accesses DB for final results
  27. 27. Optical Mark Recognition PROs CONs  Ballots are pre-printed so  Internal tallying. Voters won’t voters simply mark choices see and may not trust count  Voter training minimal, relative  Wholesale cheating, usually possible only at canvassing to DRE level, can happen at precinct  Faster, because tally of votes level automated  Sensitivity to external marks or  Less work for BEI at precinct smudges level  Difficult to fairly resolve over-  Cost less than DRE; approx. marked ballots P8B (using $2,000 OMRs)  Easier to add to under-marked ballots  Need to store specialized OMR machines
  28. 28. What does the OES Alternative need? 1. COMELEC’s approval of concept 2. COMELEC’s bidding out the development of the system and computer programs 3. Making system/programs available to IT community and to public 4. Adopting good contributions 5. Making the system available to all interested parties, free of charge
  29. 29. Once the OES system has been developed, the COMELEC would need to …  Bid out the PCs, servers, (the inexpensive OMRs), and the communications requirements  Bid out the management and implementation of the project
  30. 30. All 3 systems …  will speed up the process, in varying degrees  will minimize cheating, in varying degrees  but only OES will be transparent to the voting public
  31. 31. Now, you can make an informed choice of which solution to support.
  32. 32. Should you believe (passionately, we hope), that OES is the right election system for the Philippines, then please …  … join us in convincing the COMELEC, its Advisory Council, and Congress to adopt OES; and  … sign up to be a member of TransparentElections.org
  33. 33. If we can’t see it, we can’t trust it! TransparentElections.org
  34. 34. Thank you!

×