The general elections 2019 is moving towards closure, with six out of seven phases already over. All eyes are now on the counting.

It is not surprising that the issue of counting of Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trails (VVPATs) has become hot once again.&nbsp;

The decision to introduce VVPATs as a measure to make electronic voting machines (EVMs) transparent was taken in 2010 when a meeting of all political parties arrived at a consensus that this was the ultimate answer.

Finding the suggestion reasonable, the Election Commission (EC) immediately accepted it and asked the two EVM manufacturers, BEL and ECIL, to design the VVPAT machines. An independent committee of experts consisting of five professors from different IITs was tasked to oversee the design and the manufacturing process.

A series of trials were held, followed by a full-day election simulation in July 2011 in five climatically diverse cities– namely Cherrapunji, Delhi, Jaisalmer, Leh, and Thiruvananthapuram.

Since many bugs were noticed, the trial was repeated after addressing them in July 2012 at exactly the same places. Only after making sure that they were technologically sound and climatically dependable, were the VVPATs initially deployed in 20,000 polling booths successfully. Subsequently, all constituencies were equipped with VVPATs.&nbsp;

In 2013, the Supreme Court also lauded the EC’s decision to use VVPATs and directed the government to release adequate funds for their procurement for the 2019 elections. The machines that kept coming in were randomly deployed. From 2017 onwards, all state elections have been conducted with EVMs attached with VVPATs.

What was the counting procedure? Slips generated by one VVPAT in each assembly constituency were counted. Of the 1,500 machines counted so far, according to the EC, not a single mismatch was found.

In various elections, however, many VVPAT machines malfunctioned. The chief election commissioner (CEC) righty clarified that malfunctioning is different from the rigging.

During the by-elections in Bihar and UP, and the Karnataka assembly elections last year, VVPAT glitches resulted in machine replacement rates of 4 to 20 per cent.

These were largely due to issues in the print unit, which is sensitive to weather. With hardware changes introduced in the machines, the glitches came down to 2 per cent for the Chhattisgarh Assembly elections.

While the debate is going on, I had offered an out-of-the-box solution: Let the top two runners up in every constituency choose any two VVPATs to be counted. As they have the highest stake in the results, they will choose the ones they are most suspicious about.

This is analogous to the Decision Review System in the game of cricket, in which two referrals are allowed for each team. Ever since its introduction, violent disputes about the controversial decisions taken by the umpire have all but disappeared.

This would do away with a large random sample being demanded at present, as only four machines will have to be counted per constituency. In case any mismatch is detected, all machines in the constituency must be counted.

In March, as many as 21 opposition parties moved the Supreme Court demanding that 50 per cent of the total slips be tallied. The SC asked the Commission to increase the sample size of the tally from one booth per assembly constituency to five assembly segments of each Lok Sabha constituency “for better voter confidence and credibility of electoral process”.

The court said that the move will ensure the “greatest degree of accuracy and satisfaction” in the electoral process.

On April 24, the same 21 parties approached the SC again with a review petition, citing concerns related to the first two phases of polling and the “unreliability” of the EVMs.

On May 7, it was turned down with the court saying that “we are not inclined to modify our order”.

I wonder how these parties expected the apex to review its decision, which was taken after great deliberation, when no new facts had emerged justifying the return to the court.

Surprisingly, the issue which should have been discussed and debated is still unattended: What happens if the VVPAT count doesn’t match the EVM count? Even one mismatch is enough to create doubts about the other machines as well.

The current provision is that if there is a mismatch, the VVPAT will prevail. This is fine if the mismatch corresponds to the figures of the mock poll, which have not been deleted.

In all other mismatch cases, perhaps all machines in the constituency should then be counted. The apex court has called for “better voter confidence and credibility of the electoral process.”

If it takes time, so be it. After all, that was the purpose behind the introduction of VVPATs. This can be tried out on a pilot basis. There may not be many such cases, if at all, as evident from the experience of 1,500 machines, which didn’t throw up any mismatches, but public confidence will be ensured.&nbsp;

The Commission may convene an all-party meeting, yet again, as concerns are serious and the stakes extremely high. My experience in dealing with political parties is that with open-minded dialogue, consensus does emerge. Clarity of procedures is required before the counting day approaches. Time is running out.

(This article was originally published on The DNA. Read the <a href="https://www.dnaindia.com/analysis/column-the-politician-and-the-machine-2748683">original article)</a>

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)&nbsp;

The general elections 2019 is moving towards closure, with six out of seven phases already over. All eyes are now on the counting. It is not surprising that the issue of counting of Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trails (VVPATs) has become hot once again.

The general elections 2019 is moving towards closure, with six out of seven phases already over. All eyes are now on the counting. It is not surprising that the issue of counting of Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trails (VVPATs) has become hot once again. The decision to introduce VVPATs as a measure to make electronic voting machines (EVMs) transparent was taken in 2010 when a meeting of all political parties arrived at a consensus that this was the ultimate answer. Finding the suggestion reasonable, the Election Commission (EC) immediately accepted it and asked the two EVM manufacturers, BEL and ECIL, to design the VVPAT machines. An independent committee of experts consisting of five professors from different IITs was tasked to oversee the design and the manufacturing process. A series of trials were held, followed by a full-day election simulation in July 2011 in five climatically diverse cities– namely Cherrapunji, Delhi, Jaisalmer, Leh, and Thiruvananthapuram. Since many bugs were noticed, the trial was repeated after addressing them in July 2012 at exactly the same places. Only after making sure that they were technologically sound and climatically dependable, were the VVPATs initially deployed in 20,000 polling booths successfully. Subsequently, all constituencies were equipped with VVPATs. In 2013, the Supreme Court also lauded the EC’s decision to use VVPATs and directed the government to release adequate funds for their procurement for the 2019 elections. The machines that kept coming in were randomly deployed. From 2017 onwards, all state elections have been conducted with EVMs attached with VVPATs. What was the counting procedure? Slips generated by one VVPAT in each assembly constituency were counted. Of the 1,500 machines counted so far, according to the EC, not a single mismatch was found. In various elections, however, many VVPAT machines malfunctioned. The chief election commissioner (CEC) righty clarified that malfunctioning is different from the rigging. During the by-elections in Bihar and UP, and the Karnataka assembly elections last year, VVPAT glitches resulted in machine replacement rates of 4 to 20 per cent. These were largely due to issues in the print unit, which is sensitive to weather. With hardware changes introduced in the machines, the glitches came down to 2 per cent for the Chhattisgarh Assembly elections. While the debate is going on, I had offered an out-of-the-box solution: Let the top two runners up in every constituency choose any two VVPATs to be counted. As they have the highest stake in the results, they will choose the ones they are most suspicious about. This is analogous to the Decision Review System in the game of cricket, in which two referrals are allowed for each team. Ever since its introduction, violent disputes about the controversial decisions taken by the umpire have all but disappeared. This would do away with a large random sample being demanded at present, as only four machines will have to be counted per constituency. In case any mismatch is detected, all machines in the constituency must be counted. In March, as many as 21 opposition parties moved the Supreme Court demanding that 50 per cent of the total slips be tallied. The SC asked the Commission to increase the sample size of the tally from one booth per assembly constituency to five assembly segments of each Lok Sabha constituency “for better voter confidence and credibility of electoral process”. The court said that the move will ensure the “greatest degree of accuracy and satisfaction” in the electoral process. On April 24, the same 21 parties approached the SC again with a review petition, citing concerns related to the first two phases of polling and the “unreliability” of the EVMs. On May 7, it was turned down with the court saying that “we are not inclined to modify our order”. I wonder how these parties expected the apex to review its decision, which was taken after great deliberation, when no new facts had emerged justifying the return to the court. Surprisingly, the issue which should have been discussed and debated is still unattended: What happens if the VVPAT count doesn’t match the EVM count? Even one mismatch is enough to create doubts about the other machines as well. The current provision is that if there is a mismatch, the VVPAT will prevail. This is fine if the mismatch corresponds to the figures of the mock poll, which have not been deleted. In all other mismatch cases, perhaps all machines in the constituency should then be counted. The apex court has called for “better voter confidence and credibility of the electoral process.” If it takes time, so be it. After all, that was the purpose behind the introduction of VVPATs. This can be tried out on a pilot basis. There may not be many such cases, if at all, as evident from the experience of 1,500 machines, which didn’t throw up any mismatches, but public confidence will be ensured. The Commission may convene an all-party meeting, yet again, as concerns are serious and the stakes extremely high. My experience in dealing with political parties is that with open-minded dialogue, consensus does emerge. Clarity of procedures is required before the counting day approaches. Time is running out. (This article was originally published on The DNA. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)

What happens if the VVPAT count doesn’t match the EVM count?

The socioeconomic prospects of a country are best measured by the social and political status enjoyed by its women. In that context, India became a trailblazer by granting women the equal right to vote from day one along with men through Universal Adult Suffrage. It may not sound like a big deal today — but it is.&nbsp;

Take, for example, the case of the US, which took 144 years, and the UK, which took 100 years to confer political equality on women. By the time women got unconditional suffrage in the latter in 1928, Dr Muthulaxmi Reddy, a 41-year-old doctor, had already become the first female member of the Madras Legislative Council of colonial India.

Unfortunately, equal voting rights and elections have not translated into better outcomes for women in the field of political and socioeconomic participation. After seven decades, we remain a highly patriarchal society. Social and cultural stereotypes, educational and economic backwardness, safety and security issues lead to women facing uncertainty inside and outside the four walls of their home.&nbsp;

India suffers from one of the worst sex ratios in South Asia — 940 women for every 1,000 men. We rank poorly in World Economic Forum’s Global Gender Gap Index — 108 out of 149 countries. Even within that index, we rank 142 out of 149 countries on economic opportunity and participation. This deficit also translates into gender-skewed voter lists. For instance, the ratio was as low as 800 to 1,000 males when I joined the Election Commission in 2006.&nbsp;

To enable greater participation of women as voters, the Commission undertook the onerous task of searching for ‘missing women’ from the voter lists. Gender was included as a principal element in the review of the health of electoral rolls. It was found that some of the common issues post registration included concerns about security at the booths (for instance, encountering anti-social elements), family pressures, sanitation facilities, etc.&nbsp;

Subsequent voter education campaigns included targeted communication to family elders for curing stereotypes. Separate queues for women, female staff at the booths, female police force and all-women polling stations in some areas contributed to jump in female turnout. For instance, in 2012 UP elections, a simple but innovative idea of allowing two women in the queue to enter the polling station for every man proved to be a game-changer. &nbsp; 
 
The EC’s National and State level election icons helped bring women out. Celebrated figures such as folk singers Malini Awasthi in UP and Sharda Sinha in Bihar, inspired millions of women to go to the polling booths. Due to such efforts, women voters outnumbered men in the 2010 Bihar elections (54.85 per cent against 50.77 per cent) and 2012 UP elections (60.28 per cent against 58.68 per cent).

Due to the EC’s Systematic Voter Education for Electoral Participation (SVEEP) aimed at educating the masses and focusing on women, there was a 10 per cent point jump in women’s turnout - from 55.82 per cent in 2009 to 65.63 per cent in 2014! The icing on the cake- women outnumbered men in 16 states despite the adverse gender ratio. The gender voting gap shrank to mere 1.46 per cent.&nbsp; 
 
&nbsp;
<img alt="Figure 1" data-caption="Fig 1. Graph Source- Quraishi, SY. 2019. The Great March of Democracy, Seven Decades of India’s Elections. Penguin Random House." data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="71bddf57-a0ec-4c95-859f-d51a06ff2af6" src="//cdn.wionews.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/Picture1_1.png" />
Fig 1. Graph Source- Quraishi, SY. 2019. The Great March of Democracy, Seven Decades of India’s Elections. Penguin Random House. 
 
While the Commission has lead the way in making elections inclusive, the sorry state of women’s participation in the legislatures is abysmal 12.15 per cent in the Lok Sabha (Fig 2) and even more abysmal in most state legislatures. (Fig 3) 
 
<img alt="Figure 2" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="398f67b2-2eae-4af4-91be-ef91292bcf85" src="//cdn.wionews.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/Picture2.png" />

&nbsp;
<img alt="Figure 3" data-caption="Fig (2 and 3)Source- Trivedi Centre for Political Data (Image Courtesy:Citizen Matters)" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="7feb5eb3-f59c-4b6a-b11a-db003937a56e" src="//cdn.wionews.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/Picture3.png" />
Fig (2 and 3)Source- Trivedi Centre for Political Data (Image Courtesy:Citizen Matters) 
 
This is shameful as compared to some neighbouring conservative Muslim countries, such as Afghanistan, Pakistan and Bangladesh, which have high female political representation. This has become a reality due to affirmative legislation on women’s representation. Nepal has led the way with its latest progressive constitution and has recorded dramatic increase of women at all levels of government, not just the national legislature. (Fig 4)
<img alt="Figure 4" data-caption="Fig 4. Source- World Bank Data" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="5c90b5e6-2225-4490-ac29-aade0717e14a" src="//cdn.wionews.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/Picture4_0.png" />
Fig 4. Source- World Bank Data 
 
The unwillingness of Indian political leadership (which is dominated by males) to provide women fair representation in its legislatures is paradoxical. Women were allowed 33 per cent in local bodies in 1993, which was later made 50 per cent in 2009. A number of states have introduced 50 per cent reservations in corporations and municipalities. But the upper levels of government are still to pass their respective reservation bills that have been debated ad nauseam.&nbsp; 
 
Unfortunately, political parties are reluctant to even give enough tickets to women. Hardly one-tenth of total candidates are female — the excuse of low ‘winnability’ of female candidates is a myth. Anyone with the slightest bit of knowledge of our electoral history is aware of the simple fact that their “strike rate” has always been as much as two to four times higher! (Fig 5) 
&nbsp;
<img alt="Figure 5" data-caption="&lt;br /&gt;
Factly.com, ECI" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="f908e97a-c09e-496d-aabc-2f478aa097f8" src="//cdn.wionews.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/Picture5.png" />
Factly.com, ECI 
 
In this context, it is a welcome transformation that some parties are now competing to give tickets to women, with Trinamool Congress giving 41 per cent tickets to women, and Biju Janata Dal giving 33 per cent. The gender participation within all parties is abysmal and this is certainly a good start. But a lot more needs to be done. The women’s reservation bills at both state and National level are overdue. &nbsp;

Though our elections are considered a gold standard, the agenda of women’s political representation remains unfinished. The society must ensure that women don’t only choose their representatives, but become one. A comprehensive reform agenda must be a priority for the 17th Lok Sabha. Women’s representation in legislatures throughout the country needs to be written down into law and not left to the discretion of political parties. It is time the political parties follow the example of inclusive elections set by the Election Commission by making parliament inclusive. The time for walking the talk is now.

 
(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.) &nbsp; 
&nbsp;

The socioeconomic prospects of a country are best measured by the social and political status enjoyed by its women. In that context, India became a trailblazer by granting women the equal right to vote from day one along with men through Universal Adult Suffrage.

The socioeconomic prospects of a country are best measured by the social and political status enjoyed by its women. In that context, India became a trailblazer by granting women the equal right to vote from day one along with men through Universal Adult Suffrage. It may not sound like a big deal today — but it is. Take, for example, the case of the US, which took 144 years, and the UK, which took 100 years to confer political equality on women. By the time women got unconditional suffrage in the latter in 1928, Dr Muthulaxmi Reddy, a 41-year-old doctor, had already become the first female member of the Madras Legislative Council of colonial India. Unfortunately, equal voting rights and elections have not translated into better outcomes for women in the field of political and socioeconomic participation. After seven decades, we remain a highly patriarchal society. Social and cultural stereotypes, educational and economic backwardness, safety and security issues lead to women facing uncertainty inside and outside the four walls of their home. India suffers from one of the worst sex ratios in South Asia — 940 women for every 1,000 men. We rank poorly in World Economic Forum’s Global Gender Gap Index — 108 out of 149 countries. Even within that index, we rank 142 out of 149 countries on economic opportunity and participation. This deficit also translates into gender-skewed voter lists. For instance, the ratio was as low as 800 to 1,000 males when I joined the Election Commission in 2006. To enable greater participation of women as voters, the Commission undertook the onerous task of searching for ‘missing women’ from the voter lists. Gender was included as a principal element in the review of the health of electoral rolls. It was found that some of the common issues post registration included concerns about security at the booths (for instance, encountering anti-social elements), family pressures, sanitation facilities, etc. Subsequent voter education campaigns included targeted communication to family elders for curing stereotypes. Separate queues for women, female staff at the booths, female police force and all-women polling stations in some areas contributed to jump in female turnout. For instance, in 2012 UP elections, a simple but innovative idea of allowing two women in the queue to enter the polling station for every man proved to be a game-changer. The EC’s National and State level election icons helped bring women out. Celebrated figures such as folk singers Malini Awasthi in UP and Sharda Sinha in Bihar, inspired millions of women to go to the polling booths. Due to such efforts, women voters outnumbered men in the 2010 Bihar elections (54.85 per cent against 50.77 per cent) and 2012 UP elections (60.28 per cent against 58.68 per cent). Due to the EC’s Systematic Voter Education for Electoral Participation (SVEEP) aimed at educating the masses and focusing on women, there was a 10 per cent point jump in women’s turnout - from 55.82 per cent in 2009 to 65.63 per cent in 2014! The icing on the cake- women outnumbered men in 16 states despite the adverse gender ratio. The gender voting gap shrank to mere 1.46 per cent. Fig 1. Graph Source- Quraishi, SY. 2019. The Great March of Democracy, Seven Decades of India’s Elections. Penguin Random House. While the Commission has lead the way in making elections inclusive, the sorry state of women’s participation in the legislatures is abysmal 12.15 per cent in the Lok Sabha (Fig 2) and even more abysmal in most state legislatures. (Fig 3) Fig (2 and 3)Source- Trivedi Centre for Political Data (Image Courtesy:Citizen Matters) This is shameful as compared to some neighbouring conservative Muslim countries, such as Afghanistan, Pakistan and Bangladesh, which have high female political representation. This has become a reality due to affirmative legislation on women’s representation. Nepal has led the way with its latest progressive constitution and has recorded dramatic increase of women at all levels of government, not just the national legislature. (Fig 4) Fig 4. Source- World Bank Data The unwillingness of Indian political leadership (which is dominated by males) to provide women fair representation in its legislatures is paradoxical. Women were allowed 33 per cent in local bodies in 1993, which was later made 50 per cent in 2009. A number of states have introduced 50 per cent reservations in corporations and municipalities. But the upper levels of government are still to pass their respective reservation bills that have been debated ad nauseam. Unfortunately, political parties are reluctant to even give enough tickets to women. Hardly one-tenth of total candidates are female — the excuse of low ‘winnability’ of female candidates is a myth. Anyone with the slightest bit of knowledge of our electoral history is aware of the simple fact that their “strike rate” has always been as much as two to four times higher! (Fig 5) Factly.com, ECI In this context, it is a welcome transformation that some parties are now competing to give tickets to women, with Trinamool Congress giving 41 per cent tickets to women, and Biju Janata Dal giving 33 per cent. The gender participation within all parties is abysmal and this is certainly a good start. But a lot more needs to be done. The women’s reservation bills at both state and National level are overdue. Though our elections are considered a gold standard, the agenda of women’s political representation remains unfinished. The society must ensure that women don’t only choose their representatives, but become one. A comprehensive reform agenda must be a priority for the 17th Lok Sabha. Women’s representation in legislatures throughout the country needs to be written down into law and not left to the discretion of political parties. It is time the political parties follow the example of inclusive elections set by the Election Commission by making parliament inclusive. The time for walking the talk is now. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)

Women shouldn't just choose their political representatives, they should become one

The general elections 2019 are in full swing. It is hardly surprising that the controversy over the Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) and Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trails (VVPATs) is also at its peak.&nbsp;

There is a well-documented history of EVM controversy. After all, every political party has raised doubts about the machines when in opposition. But when they come to power through the same machines, doubts are not put to rest. Only we have new accusers and the controversy continues.&nbsp; 
 
In 2011, the Election Commission (EC) got a rare opportunity to test the relative strength of EVMs and ballot papers. It was to conduct bypolls in 12 seats of Andhra Pradesh assembly. These seats had fallen vacant in the wake of mass resignations in the heat of the Telangana agitation.  Polls were conducted in half the constituencies using ballot papers because of a clever ploy.&nbsp;&nbsp;

Chandrababu Naidu ensured that the number of candidates in a number of constituencies was more than 64 – which is the maximum limit the EVMs could handle. And what was the conclusion? While the results from the machines came out in four hours, the paper ballots took over forty hours. Adding to that, in the seats where polls were conducted with ballot papers, thousands of invalid votes were found. The results from both the systems were exactly the same.&nbsp;

This debate should have ended way back in 2010 when the Commission called an all-party meeting to understand concerns of the political parties on the matter. It was unanimously recommended that VVPATs be adopted as the final remedy, and we promptly accepted it. The two factories which manufacture EVMs were asked to develop VVPATs. An independent committee of professors of five different IITs was requested to monitor every aspect of the process. &nbsp;

&nbsp;A series of trials were held, followed by two full-day election simulations in five cities with varying climatic conditions – namely Cherrapunji, Delhi, Jaisalmer, Leh, Thiruvananthapuram, in July 2011 and again in 2012 in the same month. Only after the VVPATs passed all the rigorous tests of technology and climatic endurance, were they deployed successfully in 20,000 polling booths. As manufacturing progressed, all constituencies were equipped with VVPATs.&nbsp;

In 2013, the Supreme Court lauded the Commission’s decision and directed the government to release adequate funds so that VVPATs can be procured for use in all the booths in the 2019 elections. As the machines kept coming in, these were randomly deployed. Since 2017, all assembly elections are held with EVMs which are attached with VVPATs. As per the present norms, slips generated by one VVPAT in each assembly constituency are counted. Of the 1,500 machines thus counted, not a single mismatch has been found. &nbsp;

The Opposition parties have demanded that half of the total slips should be cross-checked. As many as &nbsp;23 Opposition parties have also moved the Apex Court demanding the same. A group of 73 retired bureaucrats and diplomats have written to the EC on the matter, demanding an appropriate audit of votes cast in the 2019 election. To quote the central premise of the letter, “The real issue today is not about EVMs vs paper ballots, rather it is about EVMs with perfunctory VVPAT audits vs. EVMs with proper VVPAT audit.”&nbsp;

The letter highlighted the urgent need for a statistically sound sample size “With 99.9 per cent reliability, in a suitably defined population.” The &nbsp;EC sought the advice of the Indian Statistical Institute, Kolkata, on an appropriate sample size that would ensure 99.99 per cent public satisfaction. The much-awaited report has finally been submitted to the EC according to the latest reports and is being examined.&nbsp;

Meanwhile, when the case came up before SC, the Chief Justice asked the Election Commission why the sample size should not be increased. EC has apparently submitted that the experts of ISI have endorsed the current sample of one VVPAT per assembly constituency. On the other hand, the sample size proposed by the political parties would delay the results by six days. All eyes are now on the SC where the case would come up next week. &nbsp; 
 
I would also like to venture a more out of the box alternative. &nbsp;

Let the top two runners up in the constituency choose any two VVPAT machines that they would like to be counted as they have the highest stake in the results. An appropriate analogy is that of the game of cricket in which two referrals are allowed for each team. This is called the Decision Review System, and ever since its introduction, the violent disputes about the controversial decisions taken by the umpire have disappeared. This could serve to do away with a large random sample being demanded at present, as only four machines per assembly would have to be counted to ensure public faith in the system.&nbsp;

EVMs, equipped with VVPATs, are the most dependable arrangement. With only a few weeks to go for the counting, the Commission or the Supreme Court must clinch the debate without any further delay. &nbsp; 
 
(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.) 
&nbsp;

The general elections 2019 are in full swing. It is hardly surprising that the controversy over the Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) and Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trails (VVPATs) is also at its peak.

The general elections 2019 are in full swing. It is hardly surprising that the controversy over the Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) and Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trails (VVPATs) is also at its peak. There is a well-documented history of EVM controversy. After all, every political party has raised doubts about the machines when in opposition. But when they come to power through the same machines, doubts are not put to rest. Only we have new accusers and the controversy continues. In 2011, the Election Commission (EC) got a rare opportunity to test the relative strength of EVMs and ballot papers. It was to conduct bypolls in 12 seats of Andhra Pradesh assembly. These seats had fallen vacant in the wake of mass resignations in the heat of the Telangana agitation.  Polls were conducted in half the constituencies using ballot papers because of a clever ploy. Chandrababu Naidu ensured that the number of candidates in a number of constituencies was more than 64 – which is the maximum limit the EVMs could handle. And what was the conclusion? While the results from the machines came out in four hours, the paper ballots took over forty hours. Adding to that, in the seats where polls were conducted with ballot papers, thousands of invalid votes were found. The results from both the systems were exactly the same. This debate should have ended way back in 2010 when the Commission called an all-party meeting to understand concerns of the political parties on the matter. It was unanimously recommended that VVPATs be adopted as the final remedy, and we promptly accepted it. The two factories which manufacture EVMs were asked to develop VVPATs. An independent committee of professors of five different IITs was requested to monitor every aspect of the process. A series of trials were held, followed by two full-day election simulations in five cities with varying climatic conditions – namely Cherrapunji, Delhi, Jaisalmer, Leh, Thiruvananthapuram, in July 2011 and again in 2012 in the same month. Only after the VVPATs passed all the rigorous tests of technology and climatic endurance, were they deployed successfully in 20,000 polling booths. As manufacturing progressed, all constituencies were equipped with VVPATs. In 2013, the Supreme Court lauded the Commission’s decision and directed the government to release adequate funds so that VVPATs can be procured for use in all the booths in the 2019 elections. As the machines kept coming in, these were randomly deployed. Since 2017, all assembly elections are held with EVMs which are attached with VVPATs. As per the present norms, slips generated by one VVPAT in each assembly constituency are counted. Of the 1,500 machines thus counted, not a single mismatch has been found. The Opposition parties have demanded that half of the total slips should be cross-checked. As many as 23 Opposition parties have also moved the Apex Court demanding the same. A group of 73 retired bureaucrats and diplomats have written to the EC on the matter, demanding an appropriate audit of votes cast in the 2019 election. To quote the central premise of the letter, “The real issue today is not about EVMs vs paper ballots, rather it is about EVMs with perfunctory VVPAT audits vs. EVMs with proper VVPAT audit.” The letter highlighted the urgent need for a statistically sound sample size “With 99.9 per cent reliability, in a suitably defined population.” The EC sought the advice of the Indian Statistical Institute, Kolkata, on an appropriate sample size that would ensure 99.99 per cent public satisfaction. The much-awaited report has finally been submitted to the EC according to the latest reports and is being examined. Meanwhile, when the case came up before SC, the Chief Justice asked the Election Commission why the sample size should not be increased. EC has apparently submitted that the experts of ISI have endorsed the current sample of one VVPAT per assembly constituency. On the other hand, the sample size proposed by the political parties would delay the results by six days. All eyes are now on the SC where the case would come up next week. I would also like to venture a more out of the box alternative. Let the top two runners up in the constituency choose any two VVPAT machines that they would like to be counted as they have the highest stake in the results. An appropriate analogy is that of the game of cricket in which two referrals are allowed for each team. This is called the Decision Review System, and ever since its introduction, the violent disputes about the controversial decisions taken by the umpire have disappeared. This could serve to do away with a large random sample being demanded at present, as only four machines per assembly would have to be counted to ensure public faith in the system. EVMs, equipped with VVPATs, are the most dependable arrangement. With only a few weeks to go for the counting, the Commission or the Supreme Court must clinch the debate without any further delay. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)

VVPAT-equipped EVMs are most dependable arrangement

The hue and cry around EVMs has by now become a regular feature. The latest controversy involves a sensational claim of a live demonstration of hacking by an Indian cybersecurity expert based in the US in London that never happened. A promised earthquake turned out to be a damp squib.

The supposed “expert” introduced himself as one Syed Shuja, an ex-employee of ECIL, Hyderabad, who claimed to be a member of the team which designed the EVMs. His sensational claim was that he discovered a way which made hacking possible. He went on to say that the 2014 general elections was entirely rigged.

Even the recent state assembly elections would have been rigged but for the counteraction by Shuja and his team. He claimed that a senior BJP leader and a Karnataka journalist who knew about the rigging were killed, besides his own teammates whose murders were covered up as incidents in a communal riot. He said he survived and escaped to the US where he sought political asylum.

These sound like bizarre claims but can be independently verified. One hopes that the agencies concerned would be doing their job. The fact is that “live demonstration” of EVM hacking never happened. But the controversy was revived yet again.&nbsp;

This is by no means a standalone incident. There is a long history of claims and counter-claims. Every political party at some time or the other has raised doubts without any evidence whatsoever. The usual call is to return to ballot papers.&nbsp;

To force the hands of the Election Commission to return to ballot papers, the Telugu Desam Party (TDP), in 2010, put up more than 64 candidates in 12 by-elections on the Telangana issue as the EVMs cannot take more than 64 candidates. After scrutiny, six constituencies were left with over 64 candidates, where perforce elections had to be conducted with paper ballots. An equal number used EVMs. In a way, this was a great opportunity to test the relative merits and demerits of the two systems of voting.&nbsp;

While EVM results were out in four hours, ballot papers took 40 hours, with a lot of invalid votes coming in. The results from both the systems were exactly the same.

Interestingly, on that occasion, the BJP was opposing the EVM and the Congress defending it! Since the 2014 elections, all parties have been accusing the BJP of misusing EVMs to win elections without producing any evidence. Hence the song remains the same, only the singers change every couple of years.

The ECI, on the other hand, has confidently challenged all conspiracy theorists to try their hands on its EVMs to show that these can be hacked. Till date no political party has accepted the challenge.&nbsp;

The previous occasion when the demand for ballot papers had reached such a high pitch was in 2010, in the wake of BJP’s hype about hackability of the machines. The ECI had called an all-party meeting where consensus was reached that voter verifiable paper audit trail (VVPAT) was the ultimate solution. We accepted the demand and asked the two EVM manufacturing companies to design VVPAT machines.

The independent committee of five IIT professors was asked to oversee the entire technology and process. After a series of trials, the VVPAT was initially tried in Nagaland in 2012 and later in several other states. Since 2017, every state election has been held with these printer-attached machines. Voter chits generated by these machines have been crosschecked in 1,500 booths. All of them tallied. That should have ended the controversy.&nbsp;

Recurrent controversy creates doubts in public minds about the electoral system that has stood the test of time. Lack of public trust in the system is dangerous for democracy. It must be addressed effectively and quickly. Many parties are demanding that a reasonable percentage of VVPAT machines should be counted for public confidence. Let EC examine this demand and arrive at a scientific sample size in consultation with statistical experts so that the controversy is put to rest once for all.&nbsp;

Instead of appearing rigid, the Commission may convene an all-party meeting, yet again, as the basic concern is serious and the stakes are very high. My experience in dealing with political parties is that if we have an open dialogue with them to explain our stand, they always see reason and a consensus does evolve. Giving it another shot, urgently, would be worth its while.&nbsp;&nbsp;

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

The hue and cry around EVMs has by now become a regular feature. The latest controversy involves a sensational claim of a live demonstration of hacking by an Indian cybersecurity expert based in the US in London that never happened.

The hue and cry around EVMs has by now become a regular feature. The latest controversy involves a sensational claim of a live demonstration of hacking by an Indian cybersecurity expert based in the US in London that never happened. A promised earthquake turned out to be a damp squib. The supposed “expert” introduced himself as one Syed Shuja, an ex-employee of ECIL, Hyderabad, who claimed to be a member of the team which designed the EVMs. His sensational claim was that he discovered a way which made hacking possible. He went on to say that the 2014 general elections was entirely rigged. Even the recent state assembly elections would have been rigged but for the counteraction by Shuja and his team. He claimed that a senior BJP leader and a Karnataka journalist who knew about the rigging were killed, besides his own teammates whose murders were covered up as incidents in a communal riot. He said he survived and escaped to the US where he sought political asylum. These sound like bizarre claims but can be independently verified. One hopes that the agencies concerned would be doing their job. The fact is that “live demonstration” of EVM hacking never happened. But the controversy was revived yet again. This is by no means a standalone incident. There is a long history of claims and counter-claims. Every political party at some time or the other has raised doubts without any evidence whatsoever. The usual call is to return to ballot papers. To force the hands of the Election Commission to return to ballot papers, the Telugu Desam Party (TDP), in 2010, put up more than 64 candidates in 12 by-elections on the Telangana issue as the EVMs cannot take more than 64 candidates. After scrutiny, six constituencies were left with over 64 candidates, where perforce elections had to be conducted with paper ballots. An equal number used EVMs. In a way, this was a great opportunity to test the relative merits and demerits of the two systems of voting. While EVM results were out in four hours, ballot papers took 40 hours, with a lot of invalid votes coming in. The results from both the systems were exactly the same. Interestingly, on that occasion, the BJP was opposing the EVM and the Congress defending it! Since the 2014 elections, all parties have been accusing the BJP of misusing EVMs to win elections without producing any evidence. Hence the song remains the same, only the singers change every couple of years. The ECI, on the other hand, has confidently challenged all conspiracy theorists to try their hands on its EVMs to show that these can be hacked. Till date no political party has accepted the challenge. The previous occasion when the demand for ballot papers had reached such a high pitch was in 2010, in the wake of BJP’s hype about hackability of the machines. The ECI had called an all-party meeting where consensus was reached that voter verifiable paper audit trail (VVPAT) was the ultimate solution. We accepted the demand and asked the two EVM manufacturing companies to design VVPAT machines. The independent committee of five IIT professors was asked to oversee the entire technology and process. After a series of trials, the VVPAT was initially tried in Nagaland in 2012 and later in several other states. Since 2017, every state election has been held with these printer-attached machines. Voter chits generated by these machines have been crosschecked in 1,500 booths. All of them tallied. That should have ended the controversy. Recurrent controversy creates doubts in public minds about the electoral system that has stood the test of time. Lack of public trust in the system is dangerous for democracy. It must be addressed effectively and quickly. Many parties are demanding that a reasonable percentage of VVPAT machines should be counted for public confidence. Let EC examine this demand and arrive at a scientific sample size in consultation with statistical experts so that the controversy is put to rest once for all. Instead of appearing rigid, the Commission may convene an all-party meeting, yet again, as the basic concern is serious and the stakes are very high. My experience in dealing with political parties is that if we have an open dialogue with them to explain our stand, they always see reason and a consensus does evolve. Giving it another shot, urgently, would be worth its while. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Recurring EVM controversy

Author

Zee News Rajasthan

Editor

Sy Quraishi

Home

Live Tv

Latest

World

India

Business

Entertainment

Sports

Opinions

Videos

Photos

Gravitas

Lifestyle

Science

Tech

Rajasthan News in Hindi: In-depth coverage of Rajasthan Crime, Political News, Education, Rajasthan Weather Update and Latest Rajasthan News on Zee News Rajasthan.