Manual count junked

By RAYMUND F. ANTONIO (Manila Bulletin)
Link: http://mb.com.ph/articles/255262/manual-count-junked
 

The Commission on Elections (Comelec) junked Thursday the proposed parallel manual count in the country’s first automated elections on May 10, on the pretext that it would only open up opportunities for cheating.

In its unanimous decision, the poll body ruled that the manual count is not the “only” way to validate the electronic results of the precinct count optical scan (PCOS) machines, as pressed by religious leaders, IT experts, the Makati Business Club (MBC), and even some of the candidates themselves.

Comelec Spokesperson James Jimenez, who read the contents of the resolution before the media, said adopting such measure would have an adverse effect on the automation process such as the creation of discrepancies or errors in the tallying of votes.

“The Commission also cannot accept that the mere existence of disagreement between the hand and electronic count should automatically be interpreted as proof of the inaccuracy of the electronic count,” the seven-page resolution said.

Comelec junks parallel manual count bid

By Kristine L. Alave, Leila B. Salaverria, Amy R. Remo (Philippine Daily Inquirer)
Link: http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view/20100430-267246/Comelec-junks-parallel-manual-count-bid

MANILA, Philippines—A slide into chaos rather than a prescription for order.

The Commission on Elections (Comelec) Thursday junked a proposal by concerned business and legal groups to conduct a parallel manual count, at the very least in the presidential contest, to establish the credibility of the automated balloting on May 10.

In a strongly worded resolution, the Comelec en banc slammed proponents of the hybrid polling for “their lack of understanding of the ramifications of their demand” and said the proposal was “very risky.”

“Conducting a hand count of the ballots will open up the possibility of errors in tallying, as well as provide excellent opportunity for the perpetration of fraudulent acts, such as the deliberate shading of additional ovals or the defacing of the ballot security marks—to make it appear that more ballots were read than should have been,” it said.