Election aftermath — as I see it from the NBOC
Credit to Author: AL S. VITANGCOL 3RD| Date: Fri, 17 May 2019 18:00:44 +0000
THE Commission on Elections (Comelec) en banc, sitting as the national board of canvassers (NBOC), convened on the afternoon of election day, supposedly to start the canvassing of votes for senators and party-list representatives. However, after the usual preliminaries, it announced the deferment of the canvassing and ordered the continuance at 1 p.m. the following day, May 14.
I asked Comelec spokesman James Jimenez why the NBOC decided to defer the canvassing. He explained that after the closing of polls, 32 copies of election returns had to be printed (which would take time), then the results would be transmitted to the municipal/city canvassers, and then finally to the national board. According to him, this would require a considerable amount of time. Thus, no certificates could be canvassed on the night of election day. As a lawyer representing two senatorial candidates, I decided to report back for “duty” on May 14.
Entry to the NBOC was effectively manned by the Administrative Services Department (ASD) of the Comelec. The ASD was organized — each candidate has his/her own envelope, each envelope contains the laminated identification cards for the lawyers and watchers. My only lament is that the IDs have to be returned to them each time one leaves the venue. Conversely, lawyers/watchers have to register in the log sheets upon each entry. At any rate, the ASD did well.
Resolution 10530
The rules on the canvass/consolidation of votes by the NBOC is governed by Comelec Resolution 10530.
When the secretariat was about to show the first geographical location with 100 percent transmitted certificates of canvass (COCs), a party-list lawyer objected and cited Section 11 of Resolution 10530. Paragraph (a) of Section 11 states that, “if several electronic copies of provincial/city/district/country/local absentee voting results have been received, the NBOC shall open the same in the
order received.”
Thus, the NBOC ordered the secretariat to present the COCs in the order that they were received. Surprisingly, the secretariat does not have the COCs arranged chronologically in the order of receipt. It took them half an hour to consult the monitoring logs and gather the order of receipt of the COCs. My first comment — the secretariat should know Paragraph (a) of Section 11 and synchronize their actions with the same.
When the first COC was canvassed, all the names of the 62 candidates for senator, together with their votes, were read. It was followed by the reading of the 181 party-list organizations and their corresponding votes. The whole reading act took almost 15 minutes. Of course, this had to be done since Resolution 10530 said so.
What is the purpose of this? Based on paragraph (c) of the same Section 11, “the Chairman shall read names of the candidates and the votes they obtained as printed on the COC; while the members of the NBOC check whether what is being read is identical to the electronic copy projected on the screen.” My second comment – this seems superfluous since the hard copy was printed on-the-spot directly from the electronic copy. Hence, there is no discrepancy since it is one and the same. The necessity comes into play only if there are two copies initially, one electronically transmitted and the other printed in its point of origin, which is not the case here.
Hence, I approached the secretariat and inquired if I can manifest before the board to do away with the reading, which the former favorably responded to. Without any objections from the other lawyers and watchers, the reading was waived.
Statistical improbability
As an information technology (IT) systems designer myself (prior to my being a lawyer), I raised a couple of point-of-inquiries (POI) pertinent to the system display flashed on the big screen.
In one display of the monitor transmissions, there were two column headers marked as “Expected #of Voters” and “Received #of Voters.” I inquired from the NBOC, which thereafter asked the secretariat if the “Expected #of Voters” is the number of registered voters and the “Received #of Voters” is the number of voters who actually voted. The IT person manning the consolidation and canvassing system (CCS) answered in gibberish that even I could not understand. My third comment — the data labels and headers should be reflective of what it really is.
In another screen, there were only two records. The first record is labeled “SENATOR PHILIPPINES” and the second “PARTYLIST PHILIPPINES.” These records have several columns. Notable column headers are “Expected #of Voters,” “#of Voters that Voted” and “%.” I again raised another POI. Is the “Expected #of Voters” actually the number of registered voters? This time they said that it is. How about the “%,” is it the percent turnout? Again, the secretariat answered in the affirmative.
However, the “%” values made me raise my eyebrows in disbelief. The turnout for senators and the turnout for party list representatives are exactly the same. I waited for the other COCs and these “%” are always identical. My fourth comment — This is statistically improbable, meaning it is nearly impossible for it to happen. Does this mean that every voter who voted for a senator also voted for a party-list? Previous poll experience tells us that most people do not vote for a party list. For this election, the turnout is the same for senators and party list, for all jurisdictions. This is really impossible.
Copyright 2018
At the bottom of all the screen displays, there is a footer that goes “Copyright © Smartmatic 2018.” My fifth comment — Since the copyright is 2018, then it goes without syaing that it is a new application or program, which was not used in the 2016 elections. Logic dictates that if it is a new program, then it has never been used in a previous election. Isn’t this a violation of a major requirement of the Automated Election Systems (AES) law that the system to be implemented should have been “used in a prior election?”
Well, the AES mystery deepens. But, in the end…who cares anyway.
allinsight.manilatimes@gmail.com
www.facebook.com/All.Insight.Manila.Times
The post Election aftermath — as I see it from the NBOC appeared first on The Manila Times Online.