CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM AND REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE Introduction An election is a formal decision-making process by which a population choose chooses s an indi individ vidua uall to hold hold publ public ic offic office. e. Elect Electio ions ns have have been been the the usual usual mechanism by which modern representative representative democracy democracy operates since the 17th century. Elections may fill offices in the legislature, legislature , sometimes in the executive and judiciary, judiciary , and for regional for regional and local government. government . This process is also used in many other private and business organizations, from clubs to voluntary associations and corporations. corporations . Automated election system is a computerization of election process. It's where people used a specialized computer to vote their candidate instead of the usual ballot boxes where people cast their votes by way of writing on the ballot. This process provides much more efficiency and reliability than the conventional way of voting. This method is faster and can give out result of the election in a matter of days instead of the secret balloting where it will take weeks or even months before a result could be presented to the public. This This study study aims aims to discus discuss s the use of Autom Automate ated d Elect Election ion Syste System m of Arellano University, University, Legarda Manila instead of using manual ballots because you get a tally immediately, rather than having to count votes by hand.
RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES
•
Local Literature
Although the Poll Modernization Law took effect as early as 1997, it is only now that computerization of Philippine elections is being seriously considered. With the passage of RA 9369 in 2007, which amended RA 8436, Comelec has been mandated to computerize the upcoming May 2010 elections. For this purpose, the Comelec has contracted with the Dutch company Smartmatic and its local partner Total Information Management, Inc. (TIM) on July 10, for the supply of Precinct Count Optical Scan (PCOS) machines. The PCOS are a form of Optical Mark Reader (OMR) machines that function by reading and counting the markings made by voters on the ballots after the same are fed to the machines.
Under an automated election system voters will no longer have to write the names of candidates. The voting is done by darkening ovals opposite the preprinted names of candidates. At the end of voting in every precinct, the results are electronically transmitted to a central counting center (which could be a city/municipality or province) for consolidation and proclamation of the winners. Results are expected to come out in days; it is estimated that the newly-elected president will be known in two days, while a few hours only for local positions.
This clearly cuts away the multi-layered process in a manual election system and the concomitant opportunists for fraud.
Now automated election system is use even in our schools. The student council elections have always been a perennial activity for every school. It is an activity wherein each student is required to choose from a set of candidates who will represent each position in the student council. In order for the students to accomplish this, the students must go through several processes.
Introduction of computers greatly enhances the speed and efficiency of voting process. Results could be attained even right after the elections reducing the time to a mere fraction compared to the time it takes if the voting is done manually. It also increases the level of voting experience because of multimedia enhancements.
•
Foreign Literature
•
Foreign Studies
Contrary to popular belief, there are only 16 countries worldwide that have adopted various technologies for election modernization and of these countries,
only one has utilized a full automated voting, Venezuela (CenPEG 2009; pop.: 27M). These countries pilot-tested the e-voting technologies in mostly nonpolitical contests first before implementing the technologies in political elections.
In 2000, Australia (pop.: 22M) used e-voting for 8.3% of the voting population or 16,559 voters in four polling places. After the 2000 elections, the Australian Capital Territory Electoral Commission recommended that remote evoting be done only if the polling places have secure local area networks. In 2004, e-voting was to be used once more but only in four polling places.
Meanwhile, the Austrian (pop.: 8.2M) government did a test using remote e-voting in a legally non-binding election in May 2003. In Belgium (pop.: 10.5M), e-voting has been used since 1991. In 2004, during the regional and European elections, 3.2 million voters voted using e-voting. “As in the previous election of May 2003, electronic voting took place exclusively at the polling stations through a voting machine, which has a screen, a magnetic card reader and an optical pen”.
In 1996, 30% of Brazil (pop.: 192M) voted using the Direct Recording Electronic (DRE) Voting System. “By the 2000 and 2002 elections more than 400 thousand electronic voting machines were used nationwide in Brazil and the
results were tallied electronically within minutes after the polls closed. Data was transferred on secure diskettes or via satellite telephone to central tallying stations. These in turn transmitted data electronically over secure lines to tabulating machines in the capital, Brasilia, where the results were consolidated and announced within hours”.
In 2000, the European Union embarked on a project called CyberVote with the aim of demonstrating “fully verifiable on-line elections guaranteeing absolute privacy of the votes and using fixed and mobile Internet terminals”. The developed e-voting system in the project was tested in different elections in 2002-2003.
Probably one of the biggest e-voting is held in India (pop.: 1.2bn). Electronic Voting Machines (EMVs) have been in use since 1998 and in 2003 all state elections and by-elections were held using EMVs. 700,000 polling places were utilized for the 672 million voters. In these elections over 1 million EMVs were used.
In Ireland (pop.: 4.1M), however, a critical paper by two computer scientists about the e-voting system put a halt to the country’s plan of introducing e-voting in the mid-2004 elections. According to McGaley and Gibson (2003), “in the rush to appear technologically advanced, inadequate voting systems are
being installed and used. Significant errors and failures in voting systems since Florida 2002 have been noted…” (2003:2). Part of the criticisms of the scientists with the chosen technology in the Irish elections is the unavailability of technical documentation of the system as well as the source code. Regarding the source code, McGaley and Gibson say that “Since the system does not print out the vote for the voter’s examination, we have no guarantee that votes are recorded correctly” (2003:9). They go on to quote Dr. Rebecca Mercuri, a leading computer scientist studying automated elections systems, “Any programmer can write code that displays one thing on a screen, records something else, and prints yet another result. There is no known way to ensure that this is not happening inside a voting system” (Mercuri 2001 in McGaley and Gibson 2003:9). The authors further assert, “The introduction of electronic voting in Ireland, in its current form, threatens the integrity of our democracy. As demonstrated in this report, this is an issue that has been incompetently addressed by the government” (2003:9).
Norway (pop.: 4.8M) has also stopped using e-voting after evaluation of the pilot projects in 2003 raised questions about e-voting and the security of the system. In the United States, there are widespread reports of voting terminal failures and concerns over the security of machines coming into the 2004 presidential elections. And in March 2009, Germany ruled that e-voting is
unconstitutional because it lacks transparency since the voter cannot see what is happening inside the machine (Friedman 2009).
Countries which have e-voting use either remote e-voting in which the voter votes over the internet or phone or polling place e-voting in which the voter casts his vote in the polling place using automated voting technology such as the DRE, light pen system, electronic card solution, or the Optical Mark Reader (OMR).
Statement of the Problem 1. What is the profile of the students in terms of: 1.1
Course
1.2
Year
2. How do the students assess the operation viability of Arellano University Main Campus Automated Election System (AES) in terms of the following variables? 2.1.
Efficiency;
2.2.
Maintenance;
2.3.
Performance;
2.4.
Reliability;
2.5.
Security;
3. How can the propose system be of benefits to the election of the student council of Arellano University?
Significance of the Study This study will benefit the following people: Arellano University Commission on Election/Office of Student Affairs The results of the study especially the problems and solutions suggested will help the commission for improvement and future modification of the existing automated election system. The commission will also be informed of the feedback by the voting public to the different policies that they establish. The General public This study may not only represent the feedback of the electorate to the student council but will also raise awareness on the advantages and disadvantages of the automated election system. It may also encourage active participation by the students and by the Arellano University executives. Future Researchers The results of this study can be used as basis for future researchers. The outcome of the study can be used as reference to similar studies especially with regards to the automated election system in the Philippines.
Scope and Limitations The Automated election system (AES) focus only on the election of Arellano University Main Campus and will only show the results of election and the percentage of students who vote on each department.
Conceptual and Theoretical Framework This study is focused on the Automated Electionn System of Arellano University, Main campus. In this Illustration, the researchers observed the researchers process.
FEEDBACK
Figure 1.
