manual count audit shows no election cheating
we can have an army of koala bears on video but that say anything about cheating in the election. the only thing it says is it’s interesting tv for a 15 seconds, not more, no less.
we think what really counts is the manual count audit that is being done. this marries old style vote counting versus new world vote counting where the old is checking on the new.
the manual count audit is yielding nothing that points to any form of election cheating.. they are correct to conclude that when they saw no pattern in the errors. aside from the very low error,no pattern means there was no intervention from outside sources. for election cheating to occur, the cheaters need to use the computer system and programs used by the COMELEC. for cheating to be done, a pattern will emerge as that is the nature of computer programs. computer programs operate in distinct and predictable patterns.
they should complete the audit and its analysis soonest so that the election cheating charges will be laid to rest for good.
Manual audit shows ‘no vote tampering’
By Tarra Quismundo
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 01:23:00 05/31/2010
MANILA, Philippines—The accuracy of the country’s first automated elections still holds as a comparison of hand-counted and machine-counted votes showed variances that do not suggest any pattern or deliberate tampering, an official supervising the random manual audit (RMA) said Sunday.
Henrietta de Villa, chair of the RMA technical working group, said discrepancies so far noted did not suggest a pattern that could be attributed to intentional efforts to cheat.
The RMA, conducted through the collaboration of the Commission on Elections, National Statistics Office (NSO) and Parish Pastoral Council for Responsible Voting (PPCRV), seeks to determine the accuracy of the automated count by comparing it with manually counted results from some 1,145 precincts nationwide.
“So far, what we see through our naked eye is that there is no pattern,” said De Villa, who is also the PPCRV chair.
She said that was the first thing she asked the encoders from the NSO, “‘Is there any pattern?’ And they said ‘there was none,’ because the variances we saw happened to different candidates in different places,” she said when reached by phone Sunday.
De Villa said one-digit to double-digit discrepancies were spotted in the evaluation, though some cases could be attributed to human error.
She cited one precinct where the board of election inspectors mistakenly wrote 352 votes as the total, while a validation of the hand count tallied with the machine count placed it at only 253 votes.
“But we don’t see any deliberate effort [to write the wrong results],” she said.
The RMA team has so far audited ballots from some 1,050 precincts as of Saturday night, said De Villa.
10 more days
Validation of the results might take 10 more days, De Villa said, as the technical evaluation committee would have to again conduct a per-ballot review of results from precincts where variances where noted.
“People might think we’re delaying this but it’s not that easy. In case of double-digit variances, we elevate that to the technical evaluation committee and they’d have to check again if the right ballots were counted,” De Villa said.
De Villa again called for discernment when looking at left-and-right charges of fraud, saying only cases with solid evidence should be investigated.
“If it’s really legitimate, then it should be investigated. But there are really some wild, wild accusations … Maybe some [candidates] would just like to be on the spotlight or prove that their allegations are correct,” she said.