This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

**of Smartmatic-TIM’s “Mock Elections Summary Report”
**

Dated August 3, 2012 on the Mock Elections Conducted on July 24-25, 2012 at the House of Representatives Hearing of the Committee on Suffrage & Electoral Reforms (CSER) chaired by Congressman Barzaga By: transparentelections.org.ph

Lito Averia Felix Muga Gus Lagman Ernie del Rosario Leo Querubin Maricor M. Akol

transparentelections.org

Summary of Key Facts for the Audit, as presented in the Smartmatic Report (page 10 of the Report): Total number of ballots used 1,000

**Total number of ballots scanned Total number of ballots rejected Number of ballots with confusing marks
**

Number of positions audited Total number of marks counted by the PCOS (for positions subject to audit) Total number of marks counted manually (for positions subject to audit) Variance Percentage of Match Between Manual and Electronic Count

transparentelections.org

958 42 9

4 8,295 8,402 107 99.98710%

**Scope of this Review
**

1.

Review of the Variance Review of the Percentage Match Between Manual and Electronic Count PCOS Count Accuracy

transparentelections.org

2.

3.

Review of the Reported Variance

transparentelections.org

The CORRECT Variance is

231

NOT 107 as Smartmatic-TIM presented in its report

transparentelections.org

How did Smartmatic derive the variance between the manual count and the PCOS Count?

transparentelections.org

The first Step in the process of review and analysis attempts to reproduce the Variance as computed by Smartmatic

transparentelections.org

Definition of “Variance”

The term “Variance” is not expressly defined in Smartmatic’s Report. The definition may be deduced from Smartmatic’s Report.

transparentelections.org

Definition of “Variance”

From Smartmatic’s “Summary of Key Facts for the Audit”:

Total number of marks counted by the PCOS (for positions subject to audit) Total number of marks counted manually (for positions subject to audit) Variance

8,295

8,402 107

“Variance” is defined by the following formula: Variance = Manual Count – PCOS Count Variance = 8,402 – 8,295 Variance = 107

transparentelections.org

Definition of “Variance”

For simplicity, let:

Total number of marks counted by the PCOS (for positions subject to audit) be referred to as “PCOS Count” Total number of marks counted manually (for positions subject to audit) be referred to as “Manual Count”

transparentelections.org

**Variance As Presented in the Smartmatic Report
**

The formula: Variance = Manual Count – PCOS Count

may also be used to derive the variance of vote counts per position, to wit: Position Variance = Manual Count per Position – PCOS Count per Position

transparentelections.org

**Variance As Presented in the Smartmatic Report
**

The modified formula, applied on a per position basis, yields the following results: Position Manual Count PCOS Count Variance

President Senators Party List House Member TOTAL

827 6,309 768 498 8,402

833 6,184 660 508 8,295

-6 125 -2 -10 107

transparentelections.org

**Variance As Presented in the Smartmatic Report
**

The formula: Variance = Manual Count – PCOS Count may also be modified to determine the variance between the manual count and the PCOS count per candidate, thus: Candidate Variance = Manual Count per Candidate – PCOS Count per Candidate

transparentelections.org

**Variance As Presented in the Smartmatic Report
**

Consider the following results for President:

No. Candidate

Manual Count

173 44

PCOS Count

169 44

Variance 4 0

1 Abubakar, Aminudin (NPC) 2 Aceves, Tonho (NAD)

**3 Achouche, Mohammed (ANAKPAWIS)
**

4 Acquart, Clement (NP) 5 Andry Shevchenko (NAD) 6 Cristiano Ronaldo (PDP-LABAN)

19

10 14 7

20

11 14 6

-1

-1 0 1

**7 Dan-phil, Itulua (LM)
**

8 Daniel, Daniel (OCKSTEDDY) 9 Daniel, Dzierzega (SALAMIN) 10 Daniel, Geoffray (SALINGKET)

8

24 7 9

8

28 8 8

0

-1 -1 1

transparentelections.org

**Variance As Presented in the Smartmatic Report
**

Consider the following results for President:

No. Candidate Manual Count 8 9 7 18 29 15 20 11 24 9 PCOS Count 8 9 7 19 30 14 20 11 24 9 Variance 0 0 0 -1 -1 1 0 0 0 0 11 Daniel, Maldonado Ortega (NPC) 12 Daniel, Marin Rodriguez (SENSITIVO) 13 Daniel, Otele (SHAMROCK) 14 Daniel, sesse (SHEILA and THE INSECTS) 15 Danif88, david (SIAKOL) 16 Dankwa, james (SILENT SANCTUARY) 17 Dansokho, mouhanmadou (NPC) 18 Dansou foko, olivier (SIPOL) 19 Frank lampard (SIX-PART INVENTION) Hjibe , Abdel ghaffar (SMOKEY 20 MOUNTAIN)

transparentelections.org

**Variance As Presented in the Smartmatic Report
**

Consider the following results for President:

No. Candidate

Manual Count 16 24 11 PCOS Count 17 25 11

Variance

-1 -1 0

21 Hmami, Brahim (SOLACE) 22 Hodo, Daniel (SJS) 23 Hoenig, Christopher (SJS)

**24 Hogarth, James (NPC)
**

25 Holliday, Darren (LP) 26 Honnet, Guillaume (SJS) 27 Jean , Baptiste (THE WUDS)

14

10 18 16 18 35 12

15

13 15 14 16 36 9

-1

-3 3 2 2 -1 3

**Jean levis, Malake mbonjo (VOYZ 28 AVENUE)
**

29 Jean, Maciel (WAKE UP YOUR SEATMATE) 30 Jean-zephirin, Alex (WHERE''S CHARLIE?)

transparentelections.org

**Variance As Presented in the Smartmatic Report
**

Consider the following results for President:

No . Candidate Manual Count 9 7 4 13 5 17 15 11 9 7 PCOS Count 7 5 5 13 5 16 15 12 9 8 Variance 2 2 -1 0 0 1 0 -1 0 -1 31 Jeandot, Gaetan (WINK) 32 Jeannet, Auralien (WISEGUYS) 33 Jebril, Diouf (WODO TRIBE) Jefferson custadio, Jefferson custadio 34 (WOW GIRLS) 35 Jelaine, Jean-franaois (X AXIS) 36 John terry (YANO) 37 Maire, anthony (ZELLE) 38 Maitat, ali (ZOO) 39 Majdi, smain (LP) 40 Majevadia, vishaal (NPC)

transparentelections.org

**Variance As Presented in the Smartmatic Report
**

Consider the following results for President:

No. Candidate

Manual Count 13 12 8 PCOS Count 13 15 8

Variance

0 -3 0

41 Majri, bechir (BIGKIS) 42 Makhloufi, mohamed (DUSTER) 43 Makles, willy (PRP)

**44 Maknatt, youssef (NPC)
**

45 Makouba, jean theodore (NPC) 46 Makoum edimo, bayard bruno (ANAKPAWIS) 47 Malagigi, luca (SJS)

3

1 2 2

3

1 1 2

0

0 1 0

**48 Malard, jeremy (GABAYBAYAN)
**

49 Michael ballack (KAMPI) 50 Ricardo kaka (SJS)

2

3 4

3

3 4

-1

0 0

transparentelections.org

**Variance As Presented in the Smartmatic Report
**

Consider the following results for President:

No. Candidate

Manual Count 2 6 5 7 21 PCOS Count 3 7 6 9 22

Variance

-1 -1 -1 -2 -1

51 Ronaldinho gaucho (PDR) 52 Steven gerrard (BUHAY) 53 Thierry henry (SJS) 54 Wayne rooney (PNP) 55 Wheres charlie (NP)

Total Variance

Percentage of Match Between Manual and Electronic Count

827

833 6

99.9928

-6

transparentelections.org

**Variance As Presented in the Smartmatic Report
**

The foregoing results for President are as presented in Smartmatics Report The Variance presented in the matrix is an unsigned value of 6. However, applying the modified formula: Position Variance = Manual Count per Position – PCOS Count per Position the resulting variance would be – 6

transparentelections.org

**Variance As Presented in the Smartmatic Report
**

Note that in this presentation, the column under the heading variance has been appended to show the variances of the Manual Count and PCOS Count per candidate which were derived using the modified formula Candidate Variance = Manual Count per Candidate – PCOS Count per Candidate The sum of these variances is also – 6

transparentelections.org

**Variance As Presented in the Smartmatic Report
**

To complete the review, the same was applied on the results for Senators, Party List, and House Member. Presented below is a summary matrix:

Position President Senator Party List House Member Total

Variance as Presented in Manual PCOS the Results Computed Count Count Matrix Variance 827 833 6 -6 6,309 6,184 125 125 768 770 2 -2 498 8,402 508 8,295 10 143 - 10 107

transparentelections.org

**Variance As Presented in the Smartmatic Report
**

It should be noted that the variances presented per position in Smarmatic’s Report are unsigned numbers. Summing up the unsigned variance values yields a value of 143. This is confusing to the reader as Smartmatic is inconsistent in its presentation. But, when the formula: Position Variance = Manual Count per Position – PCOS Count per Position is used, positive and negative variances per position are uncovered. And the attempt to reproduce the Variance of 107 as presented in the Smartmatic Report is successful! It should also be noted the process of determining the variance per candidate yields positive and negative variances between the candidates’ manual count and PCOS count, which when summed up yields a NET variance for 197 candidates. Therefore, the computed variance of 107 hides the positive and negative variances per candidate. The variance of 107 is incorrect and misleading.

transparentelections.org

The next step in the process of review and analysis is to uncover the Correct Variance by considering the number of instances that the Manual count differed with the PCOS count in the determination of the vote mark for the counting of votes

transparentelections.org

The Audit Method prescribed by RA9369 must also be considered in order to derive a correct definition of variance

transparentelections.org

Audit Method

The audit method is prescribed by RA9369, to wit:

**SEC. 27. Section 27 of Republic Act No. 8436 is hereby amended to read as follows:
**

xxx 2. An evaluation of their accuracy through a comparison of a random sample of the AES election results with a manual tabulation, and the conduct of similar tests; xxx

transparentelections.org

Audit Method

It should be noted that while the above Audit Method is prescribed for use by the Oversight Committee in conducting a comprehensive assessment and evaluation of the performance of different AES technologies implemented, the same methodology was adopted and used by COMELEC in evaluating the PCOS machine for its accuracy for the 2010 NLE. The same Audit Method was adopted in the Random Manual Audit Team.

**The same Audit Method was used in audit of the Mock Election Results.
**

transparentelections.org

**The Correct Variance
**

The Audit Method involves the manual evaluation of a marked oval per candidate per ballot and, if deemed to be a valid mark, considered in the vote count.

Undisclosed by Smartmatic, in the PCOS process of evaluating a ballot for marked ovals, a mark deemed valid is considered a vote for a candidate and is recorded in the mark interpretation record which is appended to the image of the ballot.

transparentelections.org

**The Correct Variance
**

The manually evaluated vote marks per ballot should have been compared with the vote record appended to the image of the ballot stored in the PCOS. Absent the above comparison (as should have been done) the difference between the manual count and the PCOS count per candidate represents the number of instances that the Manual differed

**with the PCOS in evaluating the mark in the oval per candidate.
**

transparentelections.org

Correct Variance

What is the “Correct Variance”? The “Correct Variance” is the total number of instances where the Manual differed with the PCOS in the process of evaluating the mark on the ballot for counting as a vote mark for a candidate.

transparentelections.org

Correct Variance

Considered again in this analysis is the results table for President. Note that the column under the heading “No. of Instances” accounts for the number of times that the Manual count differed with that of the PCOS machine in the determination of the marked oval per candidate

transparentelections.org

**Variance As Presented in the Smartmatic Report
**

Consider the following results for President:

No. Candidate

Manual Count 173 44 19 PCOS Count 169 44 20 No. of Instances 4 0 1 1 Abubakar, Aminudin (NPC) 2 Aceves, Tonho (NAD) 3 Achouche, Mohammed (ANAKPAWIS)

4 Acquart, Clement (NP)

5 Andry Shevchenko (NAD) 6 Cristiano Ronaldo (PDP-LABAN) 7 Dan-phil, Itulua (LM)

10

14 7 8

11

14 6 8

1

0 1 0

**8 Daniel, Daniel (OCKSTEDDY)
**

9 Daniel, Dzierzega (SALAMIN) 10 Daniel, Geoffray (SALINGKET)

24

7 9

28

8 8

1

1 1

transparentelections.org

**Variance As Presented in the Smartmatic Report
**

Consider the following results for President:

No. Candidate

Manual Count 8 9 7 PCOS Count 8 9 7 No. of Instances 0 0 0 11 Daniel, Maldonado Ortega (NPC) 12 Daniel, Marin Rodriguez (SENSITIVO) 13 Daniel, Otele (SHAMROCK)

**14 Daniel, sesse (SHEILA and THE INSECTS)
**

15 Danif88, david (SIAKOL) 16 Dankwa, james (SILENT SANCTUARY) 17 Dansokho, mouhanmadou (NPC)

18

29 15 20

19

30 14 20

1

1 1 0

**18 Dansou foko, olivier (SIPOL)
**

19 Frank lampard (SIX-PART INVENTION) Hjibe , Abdel ghaffar (SMOKEY 20 MOUNTAIN)

11

24 9

11

24 9

0

0 0

transparentelections.org

**Variance As Presented in the Smartmatic Report
**

Consider the following results for President:

No. Candidate

Manual Count 16 24 11 PCOS Count 17 25 11 No. of Instances 1 1 0

21 Hmami, Brahim (SOLACE) 22 Hodo, Daniel (SJS) 23 Hoenig, Christopher (SJS)

**24 Hogarth, James (NPC)
**

25 Holliday, Darren (LP) 26 Honnet, Guillaume (SJS) 27 Jean , Baptiste (THE WUDS)

14

10 18 16 18 35 12

15

13 15 14 16 36 9

1

3 3 2 2 1 3

**Jean levis, Malake mbonjo (VOYZ 28 AVENUE)
**

29 Jean, Maciel (WAKE UP YOUR SEATMATE) 30 Jean-zephirin, Alex (WHERE''S CHARLIE?)

transparentelections.org

**Variance As Presented in the Smartmatic Report
**

Consider the following results for President:

No .

Candidate

Manual Count 9 7 4 13 5 17 15 11 9 7

PCOS Count 7 5 5 13 5 16 15 12 9 8

No. of Instances 2 2 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1

31 Jeandot, Gaetan (WINK) 32 Jeannet, Auralien (WISEGUYS) 33 Jebril, Diouf (WODO TRIBE)

**Jefferson custadio, Jefferson custadio 34 (WOW GIRLS)
**

35 Jelaine, Jean-franaois (X AXIS) 36 John terry (YANO) 37 Maire, anthony (ZELLE) 38 Maitat, ali (ZOO) 39 Majdi, smain (LP) 40 Majevadia, vishaal (NPC)

transparentelections.org

**Variance As Presented in the Smartmatic Report
**

Consider the following results for President:

No. Candidate Manual Count 13 12 8 3 1 2 2 2 3 4 PCOS Count 13 15 8 3 1 1 2 3 3 4 No. of Instances 0 3 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 41 Majri, bechir (BIGKIS) 42 Makhloufi, mohamed (DUSTER) 43 Makles, willy (PRP) 44 Maknatt, youssef (NPC) 45 Makouba, jean theodore (NPC) 46 Makoum edimo, bayard bruno (ANAKPAWIS) 47 Malagigi, luca (SJS) 48 Malard, jeremy (GABAYBAYAN) 49 Michael ballack (KAMPI) 50 Ricardo kaka (SJS)

transparentelections.org

**Variance As Presented in the Smartmatic Report
**

Consider the following results for President:

No. Candidate

Manual Count 2 6 5 7 21 PCOS Count 3 7 6 9 22 No. of Instances 11 1 1 2 1

51 Ronaldinho gaucho (PDR) 52 Steven gerrard (BUHAY) 53 Thierry henry (SJS) 54 Wayne rooney (PNP) 55 Wheres charlie (NP)

Total Variance

Percentage of Match Between Manual and Electronic Count

827

833 6

99.9928

52

transparentelections.org

Correct Variance

Note that the column under the heading “No. of Instances” accounts for the number of times that the Manual Count differed with the PCOS Count in the determination of the marked oval per candidate. This time, the analysis yields a result of 52 as the number of times that the Manual Count differed with the PCOS Count in the determination of the marked oval for the position of President. The Correct Variance for President = 52

transparentelections.org

Correct Variance

Doing the same for the results table for Senator, Party List, and House Member yields the following summary of instances when the Manual Count differed with the PCOS Count in the determination of a vote mark on the ballot. The total number of instances is 231.

Position President Senator Party List House Member Manual Count 827 6,309 768 498 PCOS Count 833 6,184 770 508 No. of Instances 52 143 20 16

Total

transparentelections.org

8,402

8,295

231

Correct Variance

The CORRECT Variance is

231

NOT 107 as Smartmatic-TIM Corp. presented in its report

transparentelections.org

**Review of the “Percentage Match Between Manual and Electronic Count”
**

Note: For simplicity, let “Percentage Match Between Manual and Electronic Count” be referred to as “Percentage Match”

transparentelections.org

Review of the “Percentage Match”

The TRUE “Percentage Match is

42.13198%

NOT 99.98710%

**as Smartmatic-TIM Corp. presented in its report
**

transparentelections.org

**How did Smartmatic derive the “Percentage Match” of
**

99.98710%?

transparentelections.org

**Smartmatic’s Method of Deriving the Percentage Match
**

Consider the following excerpt from the “Summary of Key Facts for the Audit”: Total number of marks counted by the PCOS (for positions subject to audit) Variance Percentage of Match Between Manual and Electronic Count

8,295

107

99.98710%

transparentelections.org

Smartmatic’s Method of Deriving the Percentage Match

**How was the value 99.98710 derived?
**

It appears that Smartmatic used the ff. formula:

Percentage Match = 100 – Variance / PCOS Count

transparentelections.org

**Smartmatic’s Method of Deriving the Percentage Match
**

Given that:

Total number of marks counted by the PCOS (for positions subject to audit) Variance Then:

8,295

107

**Percentage Match = 100 – 107/8,295 Percentage Match = 100 – 0.012899 Percentage Match = 99.98710
**

transparentelections.org

**Smartmatic’s Method of Deriving the Percentage Match
**

The value 99.98710 has been successfully reproduced using the formula Percentage Match = 100 – Variance / PCOS Count

WHAT IS ODD IS that Smartmatic had simply appended the percent symbol (%) to the resulting value so that: Percentage Match = 99.98710%

transparentelections.org

**Smartmatic’s Method of Deriving the Percentage Match
**

The Percentage Match presented in Smartmatic’s Report is doubly incorrect because: (1) The value computed by Smartmatic for the “Percentage Match Between Manual and Electronic Count” is not a percentage value. Smartmatic had simply appended the percent symbol (%) to the value it computed (2) The converse of the ratio “Variance / PCOS count” does not represent the Percentage Match

**This is PLAIN AND SIMPLE SMARTMAGIC!!!
**

transparentelections.org

What then is the correct value for the “Percentage Match”?

transparentelections.org

**Definition of “Percentage Match”
**

The term “Percentage Match” is not expressly defined in Smartmatic’s Report. Would it refer to: • The number of ballots that had an exact match between human and PCOS machine evaluation? • The number of candidates that had exact match between the Manual Count and PCOS Count? The definition may be deduced from Smartmatic’s Report

transparentelections.org

Definition of “Percentage Match” A detailed review of the four results tables for President, Senator, Party List, and House Member reveals that there are candidates whose Manual Count and PCOS Count matched (Variance = 0). It may be concluded, therefore, that “Percentage Match” is the ratio between the “number of candidates whose Manual and PCOS Count matched” and the “total number of candidates” expressed in percentage.

transparentelections.org

**Definition of “Percentage Match”
**

The Percentage Match may be defined by the following formula: Percentage Match = Number of Candidates whose Manual Count and PCOS Count Matched / Total Number of Candidate x 100%

transparentelections.org

**The Correct Percentage Match
**

Consider the following:

**No. of Total Correct Candidates Variance Variance
**

Variance, less than zero Variance, greater than zero Variance, equal to zero Total

transparentelections.org

48

66 83 197

-62

169 0 107

62

169 0 231

**The Correct Percentage Match
**

From the table presented earlier:

**Number of Candidates whose Manual Count and PCOS Count Matched = 83 Total Number of Candidates = 197
**

Therefore: Percentage Match = 83/197 x 100% Percentage Match = 0.4213198 x 100%

**Percentage Match = 42.13198%
**

transparentelections.org

**The Correct Percentage Match
**

And the “Percentage Match” may be computed using the formula Percentage Match = Number of Candidates whose Manual Count and PCOS Count Matched / Total Number of Candidates x 100%

**Percentage Match = 83/197 x 100% Percentage Match = 0.4213198 x 100% Percentage Match = 42.13198%
**

transparentelections.org

**The Correct Percentage Match
**

The “Percentage Match” may also be computed using the same formula, thus:

No. of Candidates with 0 Variance No. of Candidates for the Position

Position

%age Match

President Senator Party List

22 5 38

55 55 55

House Member

All Positions

18

83

32

197

40.00000% 9.09091% 69.09091% 32.72727% 42.13198%

transparentelections.org

The Correct “Percentage Match”

The Correct “Percentage Match is

42.13198%

**NOT 99.98710% as Smartmatic-TIM Corp. presented in its report
**

transparentelections.org

Review of the Accuracy Compliance

transparentelections.org

At first glance, it would seem that Smartmatic did not address the PCOS Accuracy Rate in its report.

A close scrutiny of the Report reveals that Smartmatic did but avoided the use of the term “Accuracy Rate” and instead used the nomenclature “Percentage Match Between Manual and Electronic Count”. As already shown, Smartmatic used the following formula to derive the Percentage Match: Percentage Match = 100 – Variance / PCOS Count The factor Variance/PCOS Count is ratio of Variance to PCOS Count which when converted to a percentage value would yield the Variance Rate.

**The converse of Variance Rate is Accuracy Rate .
**

transparentelections.org

**As a review, the following is an illustration of Smartmatic’s process:
**

Percentage Match = 100 – Variance / PCOS Count And the following values:

**Variance = 107 PCOS Count = 8,295
**

The Percentage Match is computed as follows:

Percentage Match = 100 – 107/8,295 Percentage Match = 100 – 0.012899 Percentage Match = 99.98710

**Thereafter, the percent symbol was appended to the computed value, thus, Percentage Match = 99.98710%
**

transparentelections.org

**However, Smartmatic formula is wrong:
**

The Variance value of 107 is wrong. As already explained, the correct variance is 231.

Smartmatic deducted the resulting value of Variance / PCOS Count from an unexplained constant 100. Thereafter, it simply appended the percent symbol (%) to the value derived, to represent that the final value computed is a percentage value.

Simply appending the percent symbol (%) is mathematically unacceptable!The attempt to present a high percentage match is a crude attempt to paint a high degree of PCOS accuracy.This is

transparentelections.org

simply SMARTMAGIC!

Accuracy Rate

transparentelections.org

An Accuracy Rate of 99.995% was the requirement specified in the Request for Proposal for the 2010 NLE.

transparentelections.org

**The PCOS Accuracy Rate
**

The PCOS Count Accuracy Rate is

97.21519%

Which is BELOW the 99.995% accuracy rate required by COMELEC for the 2010 NLE And Which Smartmatic-TIM Corp. DID NOT present in its report

transparentelections.org

How should the Accuracy Rate of the PCOS, using the results of the Mock Election Audit be computed?

transparentelections.org

**Steps to Compute the PCOS Accuracy Rate
**

Step 1: Compute the Variance Rate using the following formula: Variance Rate = Variance / PCOS Count x 100% Step 2: Compute the Accuracy Rate using the following formula: Accuracy Rate = 100% - Variance Rate

transparentelections.org

**The Variance Rate
**

Variance = 231 PCOS Count = 8,295 Variance Rate = Variance / PCOS Count x 100% Variance Rate = 231 / 8,295 x 100% Variance Rate = 0.0278481 x 100% Variance Rate = 2.78481%

transparentelections.org

**The Accuracy Rate
**

Variance Rate = 2.78481% Accuracy Rate = 100% - Variance Rate Accuracy Rate = 100% - 2.78481% Accuracy Rate = 97.215.1%

transparentelections.org

**Variance and Accuracy Rates Per Position
**

Presented below is a table of variance and accuracy rates per position: Variance Rate Accuracy Rate President Senator Party List House Member All Positions

6.24250% 2.31242% 2.59740% 3.14961% 2.78481%

93.75750% 97.68758% 97.40260% 96.85039% 97.21519%

transparentelections.org

**Review of the Accuracy Compliance
**

Conclusion: The Accuracy Rate of the PCOS Machine falls below the required Accuracy Rate of 99.995% for the 2010 NLE!!! Worse, it even falls below the 99.6% Accuracy Rate computed by the RMAT 2010 which also does not meet the required accuracy rate.

transparentelections.org

Why does the COMELEC insist on using the Smartmatic-TIM supplied PCOS machines for the 2013 Elections when it falls short of the 99.995% Accuracy Rate, a requirement that the COMELEC itself defined for the 2010 NLE?

transparentelections.org

Thank You

transparentelections.org

- Briefing Materials on Com. on Tranportation Meeting 17Oct2016 Monday 1020AM
- Trestiza
- Tan
- Patcho
- Magleo
- Martinez
- Bali Gad
- Bucayu Affidavit
- Affidavit Ragos2
- Affidavit Durano
- Affidavit- Joenel Sanchez
- Affidavit Arile2.pdf
- Affidavit Capones2
- AFFIDAVIT- JOENEL SANCHEZ.pdf
- Affidavit Arile2
- Affidavit - Valeroso
- SWORN STATEMENTS SUBMITTED OCT 10 2016
- Duterte's draft Tax Plan as submitted to the HoR Ways and Means Panel
- PART 12 Transcripts of Justice Committee Hearing on the House inquiry into the alleged proliferation of drug trade at the New Bilibid Prison
- PART 4 Transcripts of Justice Committee Hearing on the House inquiry into the alleged proliferation of drug trade at the New Bilibid Prison
- PART 10 Transcripts of Justice Committee Hearing on the House inquiry into the alleged proliferation of drug trade at the New Bilibid Prison
- PART 11 Transcripts of Justice Committee Hearing on the House inquiry into the alleged proliferation of drug trade at the New Bilibid Prison
- PART 8 Transcripts of Justice Committee Hearing on the House inquiry into the alleged proliferation of drug trade at the New Bilibid Prison
- PART 9 Transcripts of Justice Committee Hearing on the House inquiry into the alleged proliferation of drug trade at the New Bilibid Prison
- PART 3 Transcripts of Justice Committee Hearing on the House inquiry into the alleged proliferation of drug trade at the New Bilibid Prison

- COMELEC Res. No. 9623 - Manual Cross-out in the Election Day Computerized Voters Lists (EDCVLs) and Posted Computerized Voters Lists (PCVLs) of the Names of (1) Voters with Approved Applications for Transfer to Other District/City/Municipality and (2) Deceased Registered Votersby Jess Villarin Quijano

- PPCRV_AES101_QA_R1_20130416
- Comelec Resolution 9688
- A Primer on the Automated Election System in the Philippines by AESWatch, February 2013
- House Mock Election PCOS Error Rate from Transparentelections.org
- 10 Alerts vs Automated Election System Fraud
- Pinoy Big Voter
- Consolidation and Canvassing System (CCS) Operator's Manual [Ver. 1.4]
- GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS for BEI on the Voting, Counting & Transmission of Results - May 13, 2013 National & Local Elections
- PCOS Risks and Fraud Opportunities - Article
- PCOS Operational Procedures and BEI Manual Activities
- COMELEC Res. No. 9623 - Manual Cross-out in the Election Day Computerized Voters Lists (EDCVLs) and Posted Computerized Voters Lists (PCVLs) of the Names of (1) Voters with Approved Applications for Transfer to Other District/City/Municipality and (2) Deceased Registered Voters
- Christian Monsod
- Pcos Operations
- Pcos Machine
- A GUIDE to Poll Watching the 2013 Automated Elections in the Phils
- Automated Election Assessment Thesis Proposal
- COMELEC Preparedness for Elections 2013 - PPCRV Pre-Election National Conference
- 2013 Election Preparations v.01.11.13
- PCOS Installation, Operations, and Troubleshooting Manual [ver. 1.0]
- Updated
- AES Watch STAR Card Executive Summary FINAL Feb 17 2013-1
- PCOS_Trainers_presentation_final
- Quick guide on pre-proclamation controversy and election protest
- Recovery schedule
- Analysis of Variance for Bayesian Inference
- Biometric Models in Animal Breeding
- GRE - Practise Paper
- L03
- lec31
- Sampleddd

Are you sure?

This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

We've moved you to where you read on your other device.

Get the full title to continue

Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.

scribd