Cornered

The Commission on Elections (Comelec) might have painted itself into a corner with its preferred technology provider.

The poll body has billions budgeted to procure new vote counting technology. After unceremoniously banning former technology provider Smartmatic from the bidding, Comelec now finds itself wed to a single player: a consortium led by South Korean company Miru Systems. This could be an unhappy union.

Miru promptly flunked the pre-qualification process. This was not fatal, Comelec tells us. The situation could be cured in the post-qualifications proceedings.

Then two elections – in Iraq and in the Congo – using Miru technology were held last December. The technology proved unimpressive. In some areas, the technology had failure rates as high as 75 percent. Counting had to be extended because of the glitches.

Not to worry, says Miru. The technology supplier promised to upgrade their systems.

In the post-qualification proceedings, Miru did present a prototype counting machine for Comelec evaluation. Jaws must have dropped to the floor. The machine presented included a camera that photographed the voter as the ballot is inserted into the machine. Big Brother is watching.

Democratic elections are based on strict ballot secrecy. This is why we spend so much for the Ballot Secrecy folder. All cameras are banned from the polling stations. This prototype defies all that. It enables the ballot to be linked to the voter who cast it.

Those in the business of buying votes will be pleased. It is now possible to at least create the semblance of tracing ballot to voter. This must have been a machine designed for Kim Jong Un’s North Korea, where state control of civic behavior is absolute.

Did the Comelec ask Miru to include this feature in the counting machine? All our poll officials will deny that. The technology company seems completely unaware of the jealousy with which our voters guard ballot secrecy – as well as the serious political fallout from any method that pierces the veil.

That is not the only item of ignorance here. The Election Automation Law of 2007 is quite explicit: “The system procured must have demonstrated capability and been successfully used