This is not supposed to happen. We spent billions for the equipment that is supposed to fully automate our elections and make it fraud free.
Last Tuesday, there was panic all around. The PCOS machines being tested in several localities were failing. In the main, they were not properly reading the back side of the ballots where local candidates were listed.
Those guys who were spreading fear about automation the past few months led the chorus of panic. They have been telling us the sky will fall. Now, it seems, they are getting their wish.
To the dismay of the panic-mongers, it now seems automation might work after all. The problem was traced to a minor configuration problem in the compact flash disk that instructs the counting machine in performing its tasks.
All that is required, we are told by every geek in sight, is to reconfigure the flash disk and everything will be fine. But there is a catch to that: reconfigured flash disks will have to be delivered to all the 70,000 or so PCOS machines nationwide.
In this increasingly wireless world, it seems odd that the replacement flash disks will actually have to be delivered manually. One would imagine the reconfiguration could be done online and that would be that.
At any rate, the people who sold us this counting system are minimizing the problem at hand. They said the reconfigured flash disks could all be delivered in two days. There might be some white nights ahead, but that should be that.
And so what else could fail in this system?
For weeks, some of the guys who said we should automate our elections were the same ones clamoring that we should do a parallel manual count. Why did we automate in the first place?
After last Tuesday’s fiasco, some of the candidates joined the gang clamoring for a manual count. It’s a bit too late to do that. A manual count requires a different set of counting paraphernalia that, simply said, is not there. Without the large canvass sheets we were used to, we might have to do our tabulations on banana leaves like our ancestors did.
Let’s just cross our fingers and hope this grand experiment with automation carries through without any more glitches. We committed to this. We will have to make it work.
Glitches are, I suppose, to be expected. We have taken to poll automation in a rather strange way. We dictated upon available technology to suit our distinct electoral proclivities.
We went only halfway into the automation process. Instead of going fully digital, touchscreens and all, we decided we wanted paper ballots and a machine that counts them and then transmits the canvass wirelessly.
To accomplish this, we had to print ballots with several thousand versions, each listing the names of local candidates in every district nationwide. That is a mind-boggling task. Somehow, our National Printing Office did manage to print such a wide variety of tailor-made ballots.
With the wide variance in the content of the ballots, the automated counting system needs to be capable of dealing with each variant. That, to be sure, leaves much room for glitches.
We have no option but to prepare to deal with whatever glitches happen on Monday. We chose this process. We have to make it work.
Nothing is served by adding to the haze of political intrigue induced by groups peddling ill will. We are dealing here with technical problems that require technical solutions. Those technical solutions are within reach.
No need to call for uprisings or conjure wild conspiracies about intentionally bringing about failure of elections. The excitement is unwarranted.
Some people have difficulty dealing with a scenario of peaceful and regular transition of power. They could not deal with normality. They have such low regard for the strength of our institutions, reinforced by strong public expectation for them to work.
Some people thrill at the possibility of yet another hyperventilating episode of political turmoil and great uncertainty. It is almost an addiction.
The greater likelihood, however, is that this process will be boring and predictable.
That will be a disappointment for those who make a living out of rabble-rousing, those who thrive in constantly injecting hatred into our politics. It will certainly be a disappointment for those who will predictably lose in this game.
Elections are normally a simple process. We ask the people who they want to lead them. The people tell us their preferences through their votes. Democratic ethics dictates that we respect the public choice even if we might disagree with it.
But somehow there are those who insist on seeing elections as traumatic processes, shaped by the malevolent intentions of those who seek to subvert the public choice. This is why our elections have historically involved a high degree of violence — and a high degree of fraud.
Today, we have to understand, elections have become processes too large, too transparent and too complex for any faction to shape in any undemocratic way.