AUTOMATION

SCENARIO
 The Commission on Elections started its efforts at
modernizing or automating the electoral process way back in
1992 with Operation MODEX (Modernization and Excellence),
immediately after the first Synchronized National and Local
Elections (NLE).
1.The first try of an automated election system using the Optical
Mark Reader (OMR) technology in the 1996 Autonomous
Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) Elections
2.The partial implementation in the ARMM provinces of the same
automated system in the 1998 National and Local Elections
3.The halted nationwide implementation of a centralized
automated counting system in 2004
4.The fully automated election system in the 2008 ARMM Elections
COMELEC continues to fulfill its mandate of conducting
election – be it manual or automated.     

Source: www.comelec.gov.ph
 For the coming 2010 elections, the COMELEC is set to
conduct the country’s first nationwide fully automated
elections – from counting of votes to transmission and
canvassing of election results.

Source:
www.comelec.gov.ph
 The following shows the kinds of technologies considered by the
Philippine inspection team during the 15-day inspection trip to the US in
October 1993:

1. Mechanical Leverage Machine - a voting machine, wherein a voter

would face or enter a cabinet-type booth to cast his vote. All the
names are already presented to the voter in the booth, and the voter
would just have to push a button corresponding to the name of a
candidate of his choice, and pull a mechanical lever afterwards. His
vote automatically gets counted.

2. Punch Card System - a voting device, wherein a voter is given a

ballot, with hole slots corresponding to the candidates' names, and a
puncher (similar to that used by our provincial bus conductors in
ticketing their passengers). To cast his vote, the voter has to punch a
hole corresponding to the name of the candidate of his choice. A
separate reader machine does the counting afterwards.

Source: www.comelec.gov.ph
3. Optical Mark Reader (OMR) - a ballot counting
machine: wherein a voter is given a ballot, with pre-
printed candidates' names, with corresponding ovals
to shade or broken arrows to connect. The votes in the
shaded ballots would be scanned using an OMR.

4. Direct Recording Electronic (DRE) Machine - a

voting machine wherein a voter is presented with a
screen showing all the names of the candidates, much
like the locator screens in the Glorietta Shopping Malls.
To cast his vote, the voter has to touch the name of
the candidate of his choice on the screen, and his vote
automatically gets counted.

Source: www.comelec.gov.ph
  Type: Bar code reader
authenticates ballots, which are
completed with a keypad.
 Usage: Eight of 80 polling places
voted with the Electronic Voting and
Counting System, or eVACS, in the
Australia Capital Territory.
 Addressing distrust: The
government specified that the
program's code be open source.
 Addressing multiple votes:
Voters sign in and receive a bar-
coded ballot that gives them one
vote.
 Still at issue: On intellectual-
property grounds, the company that
created eVACS, Software
Improvements, wants to restrict the
source code.

Source: http://news.cnet.com/Global-lessons-in-e-voting/2009-1008_3-
5387540.html
  Type: Battery-powered electronic
device has buttons next to choices.
 Usage: The Electronic Voting
Machines, or EVMs, were used
countrywide in May for the
parliamentary elections by about
390 million people.
 Addressing distrust: The simple-
to-use machines are built to
address illiteracy and be
tamperproof. Vote data is stored in
nonremovable memory.
 Addressing multiple votes: Each
voter's finger is marked with
indelible ink.
 Still at issue: Questions remain
about the security of the devices
and the tabulator that collects votes
from the devices.

Source: http://news.cnet.com/Global-lessons-in-e-voting/2009-1008_3-
5387540.html
 Type: The integrated voting
device has a small touch
screen and a receipt printer.
 Usage: Almost the entire
country voted on the device
for an Aug. 15 referendum on
the ouster of President
Chavez.
 Addressing distrust: Paper
receipts were kept by polling
stations for random audits.
 Addressing multiple votes:
A voter's fingerprint is
transmitted to a national
database, ensuring that each
person votes only once.
 Still at issue: The voting
process still lacks adequate
checks on system integrity.

Source: http://news.cnet.com/Global-lessons-in-e-voting/2009-1008_3-
5387540.html
 Type: System has a touch screen
and, in some cases, a receipt
printer.
 Usage: An estimated 31 percent of
voters in the United States will use
the system in the November
presidential election.
 Addressing distrust: Easy-to-use
terminals include accessibility
features for the handicapped.
 Addressing multiple votes: A
chip card given to the voter
contains a key to allow only one
vote.
 Still at issue: Many questions
remain about device security and
the secrecy surrounding machine
development and certification.

Source: http://news.cnet.com/Global-lessons-in-e-voting/2009-1008_3-
5387540.html
 Type: Bar code
reader, scans ballots,
with built-in printer
 Addressing distrust:
Examination and
Testing of Equipment
or Device of the AES
and Opening of the
Source Code for
Review
 Addressing multiple
votes: Each voter's
finger is marked with
indelible ink.
• Component 1: PAPER-BASED AUTOMATED ELECTION
SYSTEM (AES)

Component 1-A : Election Management System (EMS)

Component 1-B : Precinct-Count Optical Scan (PCOS)
Component 1-C : Counting/Consolidation System (CCS)

• Component 2: PROVISION FOR ELECTRONIC

TRANSMISSION USING PUBLIC TELECOMMUNICATION
NETWORKS

• Component 3: OVERALL PROJECT MANAGEMENT

 RA 9369, SEC. 7. MINIMUM
SYSTEM CAPABILITIES
The automated election system must at least have the
following functional capabilities:
(a) Adequate security against unauthorized access;
(b) Accuracy in recording and reading of votes as well
as in the tabulation, consolidation/ canvassing,
electronic transmission, and storage of results;
(c) Error recovery in case of non-catastrophic failure of
device;
(d) System integrity which ensures physical stability
and functioning of the vote recording and counting
process;
(e) Provision for voter verified paper audit trail;
(f) System auditability which provides
supporting documentation for verifying
the correctness of reported election
results;
(g) An election management system for
preparing ballots and programs for use
in the casting and counting of votes and
to consolidate, report and display
election results in the shortest time
possible;
(h) Accessibility to illiterates and
disabled voters;
(i) Vote tabulating program for election,
referendum or plebiscite;
(j) Accurate ballot counters;
(k) Data retention provision;
(l) Provide for the safekeeping, storing and
archiving of physical or paper resource used in
the election process;
(m) Utilize or generate official ballots as herein
defined;
(n) Provide the voter a system of verification to
find out whether or not the machine has
registered his choice; and
(o) Configure access control for sensitive system
data and functions.
"In the procurement of this system,
the Commission shall develop and
adopt an evaluation system to
ascertain that the above minimum
system capabilities are met. This
evaluation system shall be
developed with the assistance of an
advisory council.“ (RA 9369, Sec.7)
SYSTEMS EVALUATION
CHECKLIST
The demo system was graded with a
PASS/FAIL,
or YES/NO, using the following
checklist:
 
1. Does the system allow manual
feeding of a ballot into the PCOS
machine?
2. Does the system scan a ballot
sheet at the speed of at least 2.75
inches per second?
3. Is the system able to capture and store
in an encrypted format the digital
images of the ballot for at least 2,000
ballot sides (1,000 ballots, with back to
back printing)?
4. Is the system a fully integrated single
device as described in item no. 4 of
Component 1-B?
5. Does the system have a scanning
resolution of at least 200 dpi?
6. Does the system scan in grayscale?
7. Does the system require
authorization and authentication of all
operators, such as, but not limited to,
usernames and passwords, with multiple
user access levels?
8. Does the system have an electronic
display?
9. Does the system employ error handling
procedures, including, but not limited to, the
use of error prompts and other related
instructions?
10. Does the system count the voter’s vote
as marked on the ballot with an accuracy
rating of at least 99.995 %?
11. Does the system detect and reject fake
or spurious, and previously–scanned ballots?
12. Does the system scan both sides of a
ballot and in any orientation in one pass?
13. Does the system have necessary
safeguards to determine the authenticity of
a ballot, such as, but not limited to, the use of
bar codes, holograms, color shifting ink, micro
printing, to be provided on the ballot, which
can be recognized by the system?
14. Are the names of the candidates pre-
printed on the ballot?
15. Does each side of the ballot sheet
accommodate at least 300 names of
candidates with a minimum font size of 10, in
addition to other mandatory information
required by law?
16. Does the system recognize full shade
marks on the appropriate space on the ballot
opposite the name of the candidate to be
voted for?