ass usual COMELEC is in a hurry to proclaim the alleged senator and partylist winners, never mind major major questions about that 7-hour blackout and that highly suspicious meet-me-room.
read gus lagman’s Can we trust automated elections? of april 24 2019.
Is it possible for the Comelec to rig the results of this automated elections? Of course! Is it possible for Smartmatic to rig the results of automated elections? Of course! I’m not saying that they did, nor that they will. All I’m saying is that it’s possible — easy, in fact — especially if done by insiders; and nobody will be the wiser, because the voters won’t know…and they won’t see. That nontransparency, in the context of elections, is of course totally unacceptable.
The transmission of the precinct results (election returns, or ER) to the board of canvassers was done electronically. As such, it was again a step that was not witnessed by the voters.
During the earlier meetings of the joint congressional oversight committee (JCOC), it was revealed that the data being transmitted first passes through what they refer to as the “meet me room,” where they are parked for a period before being deleted, which apparently is a violation of the election law, RA 9369. That law says that the election returns should go directly from the precincts to the city/municipal board of canvassers. In fact, there is no mention at all of a “meet me room” in the law. It was just a creation of the system provider — Smartmatic.
Even worse, the transmission of the data from municipal to provincial and from provincial to national canvassing apparently also passes through the “meet me room.” If there is any intention of rigging the results, that “room” seems to be the most convenient place to do it.
read amelia hc ylagan’s A steamy ‘Meet-me-room’
In “Future Perfect”, Tony Velasquez’ technology talk show, he interviewed Dr. Nelson Celis, spokesperson of Automated Election System Watch (AES Watch) … on glitches in the May 13 fully automated midterm elections (ABS-CBN May 15 2019). Celis said the “meet-me-room” was an unauthorized intervention that transgressed the law (Omnibus Election Code/ Republic Act No. 9369, which amended the Automated Election Law). These MMRs host undeclared servers and intercept data from the vote counting machines to the Commission on Election servers, he said. The VCMs should be directly sending election returns direct to the municipal board of canvassers. He added that as early as March, the Senate President in two privilege speeches identified irregularities, one of which is the queuing server, and the early transmissions” (Ibid.).
not surprisingly the senate prez is silent on the matter. even less surprisingly COMELEC’s james jimenez splits hairs, quibbles, about it. read Jimenez denies existence of ‘meet-me-room,’ admits managing VCM’s transmission of votes
Commission on Elections (Comelec) Spokesman James Jimenez on Thursday denied the existence of a “meet-me-room” in the Automated Election System (AES) as alleged by critics.
“The meet-me-room narrative has it that this is a physical room or a server, either of the two. There is no such thing as a separate server as a meet-me-room,” he said in a press briefing at the PICC, Thursday.
The Automated Election System Watch (AES Watch) claimed that a “meet-me-room” has already been in place since the 2016 elections, which is an undeclared queuing server that may open windows for irregularities in the release of the election results.
But Jimenez said their critic might be referring to the transmission gateway router that is used in the AES that allows the Comelec to properly manage the results being transmitted by the vote counting machines (VCMs).
“Basically, what that means is that it is not a separate server. It is simply an arrangement in the program that allows us to play traffic cop to the incoming transmissions,” he said.
“It is a way of making sure that the flow ng (of) data coming for the field, coming from the VCMs into the transparency server, is properly managed,” added Jimenez.
there we go. COMELEC played traffic cop to the incoming transmissions. that could mean a lot of things, and most relevant here and now would be: may pinadaan, pinalampas, at binilang, AT may pinigil, hinarang, at hindi binilang. correct me if i’m wrong, COMELEC, and prove it!
*
Comelec’s eerie silence by Gus Lagman 10july
Lost credibility by Ninez Cacho-Olivares
Slick operators by The Daily Tribune
Who owns and runs this ‘meet-me’ room? by Marichu A. Villanueva
who is gus lagman, and why should we believe him? read winnie monsod’s “Why the Comelec needs Gus Lagman”
https://opinion.inquirer.net/83307/why-the-comelec-needs-gus-lagman
“[Gus Lagman] was appointed ]to the COMELEC] on April 27, 2011, and served for less than a year before he was unceremoniously booted out, reportedly because of the objections of then Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile. Apparently, then Comelec Chair Sixto Brillantes didn’t like him either (Gus was too ethical, I think).
“What was so frustrating at the time was that Gus did not have the chance to face his accusers in the Commission on Appointments: His ad-interim appointment was just not renewed.
“…when Gus was sacrificed on the altar of political accommodation, no IT expert was ever appointed to replace him.”
read “Gus Lagman leaving Comelec” https://news.abs-cbn.com/nation/04/17/12/lagman-says-palace-replacing-him
“Lagman, who has served as poll commissioner for 10 only months, said news that he was being sacked came ahead of his scheduled confirmation before the CA.
“He said it was common knowledge that Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile would reject his confirmation because of accusations that Lagman, who was part of the National Citizens’ Movement for Free Elections (Namfrel), allegedly had a hand in the rigging of vote results in the 1987 elections.
“There were 24 Senate seats in the 1987 polls. Enrile came last. He almost lost to 25th placer, Augusto Sanchez, who briefly served as Cory Aquino’s labor minister.
“’Mayroon siyang akusasyon sa akin at sa Namfrel na nadaya daw sila nung 1987. Dahil dun, naisip ng Malacañang na wag na lang ako i-appoint para di na ako dumaan sa confirmation process para i-reject. Yun ang katotohanan,’ he said.
“Lagman said he would have wanted to face the CA so he could answer Enrile’s accusation after 25 years.
“He denied that Namfrel conspired with Comelec to add 2 million votes to senatorial candidates backed by then President Cory Aquino. He said the conspiracy theory would mean that then-Comelec chairman Ramon Felipe, Commissioner Haydee Yorac and then-Namfrel chairman Christian Monsod knew about the rigging of the votes.
“He also said that both Enrile and Joseph Estrada won in the 1987 election. ‘If they were cheated, they should not have won,’ he said.
“He rejected claims that Enrile has diskettes that allegedly show how Namfrel rigged the votes.
“Lagman said he does not know if his ouster is connected to the impeachment trial of Chief Justice Renato Corona amid reports that Malacañang is wooing Enrile’s vote.
“He said his ouster could also be linked to his opposition to Comelec’s plan to purchase 82,000 second-hand Precinct Count Optical Scan (PCOS) machines used in the 2010 elections.
“He said it is possible that current Comelec Chairman Sixto Brillantes no longer wanted him in the poll body because of his opposition to the PCOS purchase.
“’Mas pwede ko pang paniwalaan ay nagdissent ako sa option to purchase the PCOS machines. Kasi yung timing e…,’ he said.
“Lagman said the decision to purchase the PCOS machines violates the procurement law because it did not undergo public bidding.
“He said the opinion of the government policy procurement board states that Comelec should not have purchased the machines.
Lagman said some of the poll commissioners cited lack of time and funds and ease of use of the Smartmatic-TIM machines as the reason to buy them. He noted, however, that there were many technical glitches that Smartmatic-TIM had yet to fix.
“He also found it questionable that thousands of compact flash (CF) cards were replaced a week before the 2010 elections. He said the decision to change the CF cards was unheard of in a major IT project, particularly for a nationwide election.
On the issue of money, he said he actually talked to the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) about getting more funds to buy better vote-counting machines.
“’I asked DBM if we could get more money and they said there is more money. I don’t know why it is not being pursued. I brought the Comelec people to DBM to find out about it but my proposal was ignored,’ he said.”
MALOU TIQUIA: “Et tu, Comelec?” https://www.manilatimes.net/et-tu-comelec/557725/
“In the end, local candidates and voters want to have a hybrid system for 2022. Let the AES continue with more safeguards as mandated by law — from ultraviolet lights, electronic signatures, etc. — but allow a manual precinct count and a determination of improbabilities when there are more spoiled ballots per clustered precinct.”
NINEZ CACHO OLIVARES: “Time to move on?” https://tribune.net.ph/index.php/2019/05/21/time-to-move-on/
Namfrel chair Gus Lagman, pointed out that manual counting in the precinct level only takes one day, apart from which this is openly counted with the people, as well as the parties’ watchers present.
In a hybrid election count, the manual count and the automated count can go hand in hand and the different candidates would at least know which precinct the votes came from and definitely, instead of a rush of automated votes count where no one really knows where the votes came from.
Lagman added that transparency is more important than the automated elections’ purpose of facilitating faster counting of votes.
…The electorate can’t move on — not when the Comelec continues to be bereft of credibility.
NELSON CELIS: “2019 elections assessment: Worst!”
https://www.manilatimes.net/2019-elections-assessment-worst/558175/
“For the 2022 presidential elections, AES Watch recommends a hybrid technology, where public counting (i.e., pure manual or computer-aided) is done in the precincts, while electronic transmission and consolidation, and canvassing would remain automated.”
RICARDO SALUDO: “In future elections, let’s stop using Smartmatic”
https://www.manilatimes.net/in-future-elections-lets-stop-using-smartmatic/558530/
We must see our votes counted
This inability for ordinary people to figure out and affirm the veracity of automated vote counts led the Supreme Court of Germany, one of the most technologically advanced nations, to ban VCMs in 2009. German justices ruled that the citizenry must be able to see and verify the count without special expertise.
To ensure the same transparency and access to vote-counting for Filipinos, computer expert and former Comelec commissioner Augusto Lagman has long proposed a hybrid system combining manual counting vetted by voters and poll watchers, with electronic transmission and online posting of election returns (ERs).
Why didn’t Congress and Comelec go for the hybrid system, which would also cost far less than the tens of billions of pesos spent on the Smartmatic system? The common answer is that VCMs are less prone to human error, and much quicker and easier for precinct tabulators.
Yet, repeated VCM problems show that automated counting can be manipulated, with the public none the wiser. Thus, automation may simply make fraud quicker and easier.
Indeed, that may well be the real reason Comelec keeps using Smartmatic. Not only is the system cost so much more lucrative for those seeking commissions, election fraud would be easier to do, but harder to spot and prove.
SALMA RASUL: “Dubious liaisons”
https://tribune.net.ph/index.php/2019/05/23/dubious-liaisons/
…In spite of these plain constitutional directives, a foreign corporation has been assisting Comelec not once, but in four election cycles — from 2010, 2013, 2016 and the recently concluded 2019 midterm elections. Why was this allowed to occur? More importantly, why did Comelec, without the concurrence of the President, delegate part of its functions to a foreign entity, whose raison d’etre is to maximize its profit from the sale of its products and services?
Smartmatic is the Venezuela-based supplier of the now accursed vote counting machines or VCM used in the 13 May midterm elections. It also supplied the VCM’s precursor, the precinct count optical scanner for three previous national elections. The company has a less than sterling reputation arising from its involvement in the national elections of other countries where unpopular candidates inexplicably got elected to public office. This earned the company the sobriquet “SmartMagic.”
Brazil, Mexico and Venezuela have availed of the voting technology marketed by Smartmatic. In these jurisdictions, the national elections were all tainted with doubt and controversy triggered by the delays in vote count, defective machines, allegations of vote padding and technical manipulation. Sounds familiar, doesn’t it?
The company crashed into our stream of consciousness when it peddled direct recording electronic voting systems to Comelec in 2008. This technology, piloted in the elections in the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao, was again used in the 2010 elections. This, despite the glitches and flaws in the technology, and against the advice of Filipino IT experts.
The unfathomable appeal of Smartmatic to Comelec and the latter’s unwavering preference for a voting system that has consistently raised questions as to the accuracy and integrity of the vote count have been constant sources of bewilderment.
SATUR OCAMPO: “Continuing questions on automated elections”
https://www.philstar.com/opinion/2019/05/25/1920758/continuing-questions-automated-elections
GUS LAGMAN: “What went wrong in the May 13 elections?”
https://www.manilatimes.net/what-went-wrong-in-the-may-13-elections/561329/
… What went wrong in the May 13 elections?
BY GUS LAGMAN
MAY 29, 2019
HOME / OPINION / OP-ED COLUMNS / OPINION ON PAGE ONE / WHAT WENT WRONG IN THE MAY 13 ELECTIONS?
GUS LAGMAN
IT is not only information technology (IT) practitioners who say that the most recent electoral exercise — on May 13, 2019 — must have been one of the worst, if not the worst, implementation of automated elections since the first such automated elections were held in 2010. Even some ordinary voters with no IT experience are saying the same thing.
This is truly surprising considering that it was already the fourth time that the Commission on Elections (Comelec) would be running this automated system, and it would not have been unfair to expect that the operation should be close to flawless. But, lo and behold, it was not! In fact, it was worse than the previous elections.
What went wrong? Quite a few.
Advertisements
1. There were more vote counting machines (VCMs) that malfunctioned. Many IT practitioners expected that this would happen because those VCMs are now three years old. Worse, they were not used at all during those three years. More failures can be expected when electronic equipment are not used for many years.
2. A lot more SD cards malfunctioned, compared to previous years. The rumor is that the Comelec bought the cards from the lowest bidder, instead of from the “lowest responsive bidder.” The latter description assures government agencies that quality is not sacrificed when the lowest bidder, as per the procurement law, is awarded the contract.
3. There was a seven-hour outage, meaning, that during the election night processing, there was a seven-hour gap when no updated results were being reported to the public. That was the first time such a horrible occurrence would happen. The story goes that after the 6:15 p.m. update release on the results of the elections (based on 0.38 percent of the voter turn-out), the Comelec went silent. For a very long seven hours. Then at around 1:15 a.m. of the following morning, May 14, the commission released an updated report, covering approximately 91 percent of the voter turn-out. No clear explanation to the public as to what happened.
4. To be treated as a separate failure by itself, was the lack of — actually almost zero — visibility of the Comelec commissioners during those seven hours. Even if there were no problems, the credibility of the results would be enhanced if some commissioners and/or the chairman himself, appear on TV to explain what is happening. This becomes even more important when problems occur. That seven-hour outage was such an occurrence. The biggest ever, in fact. As far as I can recall, no commissioner came out to clearly explain that serious election processing malfunction.
Advertisements
There may have been a few more mishaps, but the above were the major ones.
Let me restate, at this point, what I have been saying for the last 10 years — “vote counting at the precincts should not be automated!”
Aside from the problems mentioned above that should not have occurred at all if the precinct-counting had not been automated, there is an even bigger reason why precinct-counting should remain manual — that very first step in the electoral process will make the whole end-to-end election system transparent.
(Do the voters know what happens to their votes after they feed their ballots into the machine? No, they don’t!)
It is for this reason that several European countries that had automated their elections, reverted to manual precinct-counting. Germany, the Netherlands, Ireland, are just three of those countries. I keep repeating this argument because there are some politicians who say that to go back to manual would be to go back to the “dark ages.” Certainly, the three countries I just cited are not backward countries.
In addition, these same politicians probably do not understand that the proposal is not to go back to the old manual system. The proposal is simply not to automate the vote-counting at the precincts. Transmission of the results from the precincts to the municipal and then to the provincial boards of canvassers will be done electronically and canvassing will be fully automated.
Since manual vote-counting at the precincts is expected to only take one day, at the most, and since the three-level canvassing will be fully automated anyway, the whole election process will therefore take only one day longer than the present system.
However, apart from the billions of pesos that would be saved, this proposed system would have the very important feature of transparency. Something that is lost when vote-counting is automated.
The only question left in the minds of IT practitioners who understand election systems, is why the Comelec commissioners refuse to consider this more effective, less costly, and more transparent “hybrid” system.
MA. GRACE PULIDO TAN: “Part I: What matters?”
https://news.mb.com.ph/2019/05/29/part-i-what-matters/
So much has been said of the results of the May 13 election, so many questions, as well, begging for answers. For me, one thing is clear: the basic needs of the vast majority of our people have remained sorely unmet, and so they went headlong to get a piece of the pie, there and then, instantly, concretely. …