Election na pd Ma a u ni basahon
To moderator I delete lang ni if naka violate ni sa forum rules
Debunking the infallibility of PCOS machines (Part 1)
THAT DOES IT By Korina Sanchez (The Freeman) | Updated April 17, 2013 - 12:00am
39 105 googleplus1 0
Computerizing the elections offered so many promises to the voters. With the help of the PCOS machines, election results were promised to be fast, accurate and true. In a country like the Philippines, promising honest elections is huge, if not an impossibility. As a journalist of almost 30 years, I see this headline still eludes us all. A headline reading, “Philippine elections 100% honest!” would be a dream come true. The PCOS machines and the system that operates it offer exactly this. The machines may not influence the votes, but these will definitely and accurately count them. Or so COMELEC and SMARTMATIC say.
Fears surfaced during the 2010 elections --- the vulnerability of the vaunted PCOS machines exploited and exposed. Machines have no soul to be judged by. Machines are programmed and operated by men. Men are driven by various motivations. The COMELEC are people. SMARTMATIC is a group of people. Not all people are cheaters. But fact remains, when a system enables or allows corruption, there will be corruption.
The COMELEC trumpets that everything is all set for the elections. Reality is, not too many ask the right questions regarding the vulnerability of the PCOS machines, especially in the hands of a compromised technician. The majority of the population is not computer savvy, nor do they possess the know-how as to how exactly do the PCOS machines work. Law provides that the source code of the PCOS system must be made available to anyone who wishes to know how these machines are programmed. To this day, this source code is kept from the knowledge of the public and from the scrutiny of the experts. The current legal entanglements of middlemen SMARTMATIC with the real owners of the system, Dominion, prevent the access to the source code. COMELEC leadership hisses at every criticism from the IT expert groups and dismisses the election watchdogs as uninformed, ignorant or malicious. How could it be that these different, separate groups demand for the answers to the same questions? It is taxing having to listen to the technical details of what provisions in election law had been violated in 2010 and continue to be unaddressed for the May elections. While the logic of these complaints is inescapable, the ordinary voter will not have the patience to listen or to try to understand. It will take some news incident that clearly showcases the fallibility of the system that might just help the masa understand that they must demand for foolproof assurance that computerization is better than manual elections.
And here it is. The COMELEC should have no choice but to explain and assure people about what happened with the votes for the 2010 mayoralty race in Compostela, Cebu.
No one questioned the victory of President Noynoy Aquino based on his number of votes shown from the PCOS machines because the lead in the earlier surveys and his popularity at the time mirrored his inevitable win. No one dared question as it was to be misconstrued as questioning the credibility of PNoy's win. But even then some were certain -- as more and more are now made aware -- that the cheating appears to be “customized.”
Manipulation is tailored for a particular area or candidate alone. Well, at least, this is what it looks like, what with the results from the manual recount for the mayoralty race in Compostela, Cebu? The recount demanded by former contender Richie Wagas against Joel Quiño, with the Regional Trial Court finally happened after almost three years since the last elections. Quino allegedly won the election in 2010, and has been sitting as mayor since. The manual recount requires opening the machine and studying the election forms and tallying the counts manually --- comparing the results with the PCOS transmitted totals. Well, I don't know about you. As far as aim concerned, the differences in count were nothing less than shocking.
Debunking the infallibility of PCOS machines (Second of 2 parts)
THAT DOES IT By Korina Sanchez (The Freeman) | Updated April 19, 2013 - 12:00am
0 0 googleplus0 0
In Precinct 1, Quino’s votes based on the PCOS machine were 468. But the RTC manual count yielded only 214 votes. In Precinct 2, Quino’s PCOS votes were 448, manual count only at 191. In Precinct 4, PCOS votes were 471 while the manual count numbered only 98.
In more than half of the 34 precincts that were manually counted, Wagas garnered 9,725 voted while Quino only got 5,432! For all the votes for Wagas, there was no discrepancy between the PCOS and manual count. Obviously, Wagas was targeted to lose and Quino to win against all odds.
According to Richie Wagas, several irregularities also surfaced. Every PCOS machine has a distinct ID number. This number should correspond to the number indicated on the election return form. Of the 34 precincts, ONLY ONE election form matched the PCOS machine where it was inserted. Wagas says this can only mean the other 33 forms were fed into a different machine, probably even before the actual elections. SMARTMATIC is designated to make sure of the compatibility of the forms with the machines. They are supposed to make sure of the authenticity of the flash cards. Why such glaring discrepancies?
PCOS machines transmit results via an electronic signal. On the day of the elections, it was revealed that 32 of the 34 PCOS machines could not transmit their results. Because of this, the results of the 32 precincts were submitted by a person. It does defeat the whole purpose of the computerization, doesn’t it? Every transmission requires that totals be logged in a book located inside the canvassing machine. But upon opening the machines, only 20 of the precincts were logged in. What happened to the other 14?
These are the questions that have to be answered by the COMELEC. In 2010, the COMELEC was headed by an obvious supporter of the past administration. Still, the COMELEC has to explain the irregularities from 2010 and assure the public these will not again happen in May. It is worrisome and troublesome and counter-productive and smacks of betrayal that Chairman Brillantes himself would say, “Huwag na kasi natin balikan ang 2010 elections kasi nakaupo na ang mga nanalo diyan (Let’s not bother with whatever happened in the 2010 elections as everyone proclaimed is already seated in position)!” It requires no explanation why such a remark is both wrong and uncalled for on every front. COMELEC spokesman Dir. James Jimenez graciously explained to us that there have been instances of manual recounts that were erroneous and not in accordance with COMELEC stipulations.
They have yet to study the RTC manual recount, he says. Yet, Chairman Brillantes, in quotes regarding the Compostela recount, dismisses the findings as, certainly, human error and “not the fault of the machine.” Brillantes keeps missing the point. Of course, it isn’t the machine that we distrust, but the men who programmed it and operate it and manipulate it because of the fallibility of the system.
Other “analysts” say the Compostela figures must have been manipulated post-machine voting.
It is easy to “remove” ballot sheets or add ballot sheets after the doors close on voting day. But this is exactly what the watchdogs are demanding for: more security measures to ensure the accuracy and incorruptibility of the whole voting and counting process. Instead of the machine saying “Congratulations,” shouldn’t it be projecting on-screen the votes of the voter to validate/confirm who the voter voted for?
There is no more time to scrutinize the source code, much less even gloss over the system provisions. The COMELEC is trying its darnest convincing Dominion to allow the Philippine government to make public the contents for the sake of transparency. Looks like that’s not happening. Meantime, Richie Wagas isn’t interested in officially reclaiming his position as the “real winner” of Compostela, before the COMELEC can declare the RTC manual count as valid. He is running again in May and only hopes to have learned ways to nip the cheating in the proverbial bud. Little does Wagas know about several other ways by which votes are manipulated — from other stories dead men have told. For some, indeed, hope is eternal.
Source: Debunking the infallibility of PCOS machines (Part 1) | Freeman Opinion, The Freeman Sections, The Freeman | philstar.com
Debunking the infallibility of PCOS machines (Second of 2 parts) | Freeman Opinion, The Freeman Sections, The Freeman | philstar.com
-----------------------------------
Wagas’ lead in recount widens
11
-AA+A
By Elias O. Baquero
Wednesday, March 27, 2013
FORMER Mayor Ritchie Wagas is ahead of incumbent Mayor Joel Quiño in the recount of the 2010 local elections in Compostela.
The recount, conducted by the revision committee of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 55, has gone through 12 ballot boxes that showed Wagas leading 1,255 votes against Quiño.
Of the 12 ballot boxes opened, Wagas won in 11 clustered precincts while Quiño won in one clustered precinct by only 20 votes.
The revision committee, chaired by lawyer Tranni Ferrer, did not recount the ballots in clustered precinct 11 because both parties agreed to skip them.
Not interested
As of press time yesterday, the committee was reviewing clustered precinct 15, after skipping clustered precinct 14, because Wagas was not interested in it.
With the election about a month away, Wagas said he is not interested to serve as Compostela mayor, even if he is confident about coming out the winner in the recount.
Quiño’s term will end in June this year.
“What I want to achieve in this recount is to establish the truth that the PCOS (precinct count optical scan) was manipulated by digital experts so the result will favor Quiño,” Wagas said, adding that he is excited about the start of the court hearing on April 30.
Earlier, Ferrer said they hope to submit the result of the revision of ballots before the April 30 hearing.
Motions
Lawyer Guiller Ceniza, Quiño’s counsel, said that they filed seven urgent motions to annul the result of the manual counting because the Supreme Court Administrative Matter 10-4-1 or the Rules Governing Election Contest of Municipal Positions was not followed.
Ceniza moved to declare as null and void the whole judicial proceedings because Rule 10, Section 6 provides that no revision of ballots shall be made unless the ballots are authenticated.
There was no authentication at all, he said.
In another motion, Quino’s lawyer asked the court to direct the revision committee to appreciate only the rejected ballots because that was the order of the court during the preliminary conference.
Results
Quiño also asked the court to order the revision committee to produce other documents apart from the ballots.
The partial results of the court’s recount are: clustered precinct 1 gave Wagas 288 against Quiño’s 214; in precinct, Wagas got 268 and Quiño, 191; in precinct 3, Wagas had 286 and Quiño, 132; precinct 4 gave Wagas 289 and Quiño, 98; in 5, Wagas had 357 and Quiño, 119; in 6, Wagas got 452 and Quiño, 329; in 7, Wagas got 170 and Quiño, 190; in 8, Wagas got 185 and Quiño, 118; in 9, Wagas got 330 and Quiño had 229; in 10, Wagas got 400 and Quiño, 273; in 12, Wagas got 277 and Quiño had 163; in 13, Wagas got 237 and Quiño, 228.
Debunking the infallibility of PCOS machines
Reply With Quote
Posting Permissions
