Editorial

A step backward

IRONIC seems to be the kindest way to describe recent calls to reject automated voting in favor of the traditional manual system in the 2010 elections. Backward is probably the more appropriate term.

The latest call comes from 38 Catholic bishops who, like National Security Adviser Norberto Gonzales, believe that the optical mark recognition system favored by the Commission on Election should be dumped because it is not fraud-proof.

This call is ironic because these same bishops have for years clamored for electoral reform, including poll automation. It is doubly ironic that they should reject a system because of its potential for fraud, but support a manual process that has been proven to be vulnerable to fraud. This may be a matter of going with the devil you know, but this certainly is not the path to progress.

The country, in fact, has consistently failed to automate its voting system since 1998, a record that is something of a national embarrassment, especially since automated national elections are mandated by the law.

If the national security adviser and the bishops believe there are dangers to the particular system that the Comelec favors, then they must work to see that these deficiencies are addressed, not by throwing out the entire concept of automated voting, but by making sure adequate safeguards are in place.

As a matter of common sense, any such system ought to be transparent and offer a reliable audit trail that all political parties can monitor and check. This, in turn, suggests the solution chosen be open source rather than proprietary, so that experts from all sides can examine the underlying software code. We don?t need to look very far for such a solution. As early as 2001, the Australian Capital Territory used an open source solution for electronic voting in which drafts and the final software code were posted on the Internet so anyone could review it.

This is the kind of transparency and technology we need?not a retreat to a backward manual system that has time and again been shown to be slow, inaccurate and prone to cheating.