Technology, democracy and elections in The Philippines

Download Technology, democracy and elections in The Philippines

Post on 22-Jan-2018



News & Politics

15 download

Embed Size (px)


<ul><li><p>TECHNOLOGY,DEMOCRACY &amp;ELECTIONS</p><p>Dr. Francisco A. MagnoDanica Ella P. Panelo</p></li><li><p>TECHNOLOGY,DEMOCRACY &amp;</p><p>IN THE</p><p>PHILIPPINESELECTIONS</p><p>Dr. Francisco A. MagnoDanica Ella P. Panelo</p></li><li><p>Copyright 2017 by Albert Del Rosario Institute for Strategic and International Studies</p><p>All rights reserved. Without limiting the rights under copyright reserved above, no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in or introduced into a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form </p><p>or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise), without the prior written permission of the Institute, except in the </p><p>case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles and reviews. For information, address ADRi Publications: </p><p>9F 6780 Ayala Avenue, Makati City 1200</p><p>Design by Carol ManhitText set in 11 type Minion Pro</p><p>Printed in the Philippines by Rex Publishing Quezon City, Metro Manila</p></li><li><p>Stratbase ADR InstituteThe Stratbase Albert del Rosario Institute (ADRi) is an independent international and strategic research organization with the principal goal of addressing the issues affecting the Philippines and East Asia. </p><p>Victor Andres Dindo C. ManhitPresident, Stratbase-Albert del Rosario Institute (ADRi)</p><p>BOARD OF TRUSTEESAmbassador Albert del Rosariowas the Secretary of Foreign Affairs of the Philippines from 2011 to 2016. He also served as Philippine Ambassador to the United States of America from 2001 to 2006. </p><p>Manuel V. Pangilinanis CEO and managing director of First Pacific Company Limited. He is also the chairman of MPIC, PLDT, Meralco, and Smart Communications, among others.</p><p>Edgardo G. Lacsonis an honorary chairman of the Philippine Chamber of Commerce and Industry (PCCI). He was the former president of the Employers Confederation of the Philippines. </p><p>Benjamin Philip G. Romualdezis the president of the Chamber of Mines of the Philippines since 2004. He is also the vice president for Industry of the PCCI. </p><p>Ernest Z. Boweris senior adviser for Southeast Asia at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). He is CEO of BowerGroupAsia (BGA), and a leading expert on Southeast Asia.</p><p>Renato C. de Castro, Ph. Dis a full professor of international studies at De La Salle University Manila (DLSU). He holds the Charles Lui Chi Keung Professorial Chair in China Studies.</p><p>Judge Raul C. Pangalangan, Ph. Dis a judge of the International Criminal Court. He was previously a dean of the University of the Philippines College of Law and publisher of the Philippine Daily Inquirer.</p><p>Epictetus E. Patalinghug, Ph. Dis a professor emeritus at the Cesar E.A. Virata School of Business, University of the Philippines (UP), Diliman. </p><p>Francisco A. Magno, Ph. Dis the President of the Philippine Political Science Association. He is a professor of political science at DLSU. </p><p>Carlos Primo C. David, Ph. Dis a professor of Geology and Environmental Science in UP Diliman. He heads the Philippine Council for Industry, Energy and Emerging Technology Research and Development.</p></li><li><p>Executive Summary viii</p><p>Introduction 1</p><p>Technology, Turnout and Credibility 2 While technologies open up new frontiers, careful consideration must be given to the risks of inappropriate or untimely introduction of technology</p><p>Youth Engagement and Technology 3 Overview of Automated Elections 5 </p><p>History of Automated Elections in the Philippines 6</p><p>How the AES Works 8The Philippines has adapted the paper-based election system composed of an Election Management System, Precinct Count Optical Scan machines/Vote Counting Machines and a Consolidation/Canvassing System</p><p>The AES and its Security Features 9</p><p>Performance Assessment and Election Credibility 14Third-party assessments of the 2016 elections found that Filipinos have a positive view towards their conduct, characterizing them as fast, orderly, and violence-free</p><p>COMELEC Performance Scorecard 19</p><p>Random Manual Audit Results 32 Views from Civil Society 32 Conclusion 35</p><p>Acknowledgements </p><p>About the Author </p><p>CONTENTS</p></li><li><p>EXECUTIVE SUMMARYPeople around the world have progressively relied on technology in their </p><p>everyday lives. In contrast, even in developed, long-standing democracies, elections are often held manually, as the mechanics of the voting process remain largely rooted in the past. </p><p>When properly implemented, technology can modernize elections and address many of the obstacles experienced by countries using the manual voting process. At a time of increasing distrust between citizens and governments, technology can play a critical role in creating a more transparent and inclusive electoral process. To do this, however, technology leaders must reach out to key government and societal stakeholders to forge partnerships designed to enhance electoral credibility.</p><p>The 2016 Philippine elections, which were automated, have generally received positive assessments from various election stakeholders. In addition, these elections were better managed than those held in 2010 and 2013, with the electorate having greater confidence in the system in 2016 than in the past. </p><p>Positive assessments are sometimes accompanied with caveats that should be the foundation for future improvements. These comments are generally focused on specific aspects of the election process, especially in terms of the minimum system requirements set out in the Automated Elections Law. Thus, while there are problem areas to look into, these do not detract from the credible and orderly conduct of this years elections.</p><p>This Special Study discusses the relationship between election automation and election turnout, specifically among the youth, and overall credibility. It traces the history of and reasoning behind election automation in the Philippines, beginning from the effort of the 1992 Commission on Elections (COMELEC) to modernize the electoral process. It then explains the mechanisms behind the Automated Election System, its security features, manual checks, and performance assessment, to include the COMELECs Performance Scorecard. </p><p>The Study incorporates views from civil society, particularly regarding the implementation of the AES Law and areas wherein the COMELEC must work on ensuring the full transparency of the system through electronic tools and in partnership with election watchdogs. It concludes by identifying avenues for improving the election system in the country, such as: capturing and publicizing data on youth participation; improving registration procedures for indigenous people and people with disabilities; improving public awareness of the correct ways to mark ballots; and continuing to publish the election results online for public access. </p><p>viii</p></li><li><p>Technology, Democracy, and Elections in the Philippines</p><p>FRANCISCO A. MAGNO, PH.D</p><p>People around the world have progressively relied on technology in their everyday lives. The character of social interactions is rapidly evolving with the ubiquity of personal computers, smart devices, and Internet applications. In contrast, some elections, even in developed, long-standing democracies, remain to be conducted manually, with the mechanics of the voting process still largely rooted in the past even in the 21st century. In an era when people use technology to engage in almost everything, from business and education to leisure, it is high time for political activities such as elections to catch up with the modern age. </p><p>Technology can modernize elections when properly implemented. There are pathways toward responsibly using technology as a means to address many of the obstacles countries experience with manual voting. Governments, as well as citizens today, have the rare opportunity to proactively and strategically use technology to foster democracy. At a time of increasing distrust between citizens and governments, technology can play a critical role in creating a more transparent and inclusive electoral process. To do this, technology leaders must reach out to key government and societal stakeholders to forge partnerships designed to enhance electoral credibility.1</p><p>DANICA EllA P. PANElO</p><p>1</p></li><li><p>Technology, Turnout and Credibility</p><p>Election technology often refers to software programs, Internet platforms, and electronic equipment including computers, printers, scanners, and bar code readers. They range from the use of basic office automation tools, such as word processing and spreadsheets to more sophisticated data processing tools, such as database management systems, optical scanning, electronic voting, and geographical information systems. Such technologies had been adopted to reduce or eliminate over-votes, spoiled ballots, and under-votes, as well as other related problems under the manual voting system.2 More importantly, there are also claims that election technology will increase the accessibility and convenience of voting for citizens thus leading to a higher voter turnout.</p><p>Pattie and Johnston argued that a rational voter will likely weigh the costs and benefits of voting, or the time and effort to go to the polling station to cast a vote (cost) and whether his or her vote will have an impact on the election result (benefit). They use this theory to explain why some individuals do not choose to vote while others who are living in other areas decide to vote.3 </p><p>Credible elections are integral to democracy. In other words, a credible poll reflects the will of the citizens, who accept the election as a vehicle to include their voices in the political process. How do we then measure electoral credibility? Researchers have studied various aspects of the electoral process to determine the integrity, or credibility, of the outcome, and the common finding points to the importance of voter turnout in measuring the credibility of election results.</p><p>A high level of voter turnout has traditionally been viewed as a strong indicator of electoral credibility. Particularly since the start of the Third Wave, an era of democratic transitions that began in the 1970s, democracy practitioners have looked to voter participation or turnout as a key signifier of democracy. According to this view, robust voter turnout on election day is a sign of high electoral credibility. Conversely, most observer groups regard low voter turnout as a challenge to the credibility of elections and a barrier for democracy.4 </p><p>Most electoral management bodies around the world today use technologies to improve the electoral process. Some of these tools have been available for some time and their strengths and weaknesses are well known. Every year, however, new technologies and tools are introduced to the market. As present, there are several </p><p>TECHNOLOGY, DEMOCRACY AND ELECTIONS2</p></li><li><p>voting systems in use that automate the recording or counting of votes cast. Other systems verify voter eligibility and voter authentication. Some countries also experiment with internet voting as a way to facilitate remote voting and to increase voter participation and turnout. All of these efforts aim to ensure the credibility of the democratic process and the reliability of election results. </p><p>While these technologies open up new frontiers and offer new possibilities for the electoral process, there may be unforeseen risks, such as an increase in vote selling or difficulty in auditing election results if the technology is not well designed. Careful consideration must therefore be given to the risks of inappropriate or untimely introduction of technology, especially if it has the potential to compromise voter turnout as well as the credibility, transparency, and sustainability of the electoral process.5 </p><p>Youth Engagement and Technology</p><p>According to Iyengar and Jackman, no other group is as disengaged from the electoral process as the young. While they are often involved in informal, politically relevant processes, such as civic engagement or activism, they are not formally represented in national political institutions, such as parliaments, and many of them do not participate in elections.6 The consequences of age-related imbalances in political participation for the democratic process are obvious. Elected officials respond to the preferences of voters and not to those of non-voters. As rational actors, candidates and political parties tend to ignore the young and therefore a vicious cycle ensues.</p><p>Iyengar and Jackman also enumerated several possible reasons for political avoidance by the youngest portion of the electorate. First is that elections and campaigns are thought to have little relevance for youth because they are preoccupied by short-term factors associated with the transition to adulthood, such as residential mobility, development of significant interpersonal relationships outside the family, the college experience, and the search for permanent employment. Against the backdrop of such significant personal milestones, political campaigns then appear remote and inconsequential.</p><p>Another factor is the political subculture of the youth. In particular, young </p><p>TECHNOLOGY, DEMOCRACY AND ELECTIONS 3</p></li><li><p>people lack the psychological affiliations so important for political engagement. Partisanship is what bonds voters to campaigns, and the sense of party identification is more firmly entrenched among older citizens who have had multiple opportunities to cast partisan votes. The young are also less likely to have internalized relevant civic incentives or beliefs about the intrinsic value of keeping abreast of public affairs.</p><p>Consequently, coming up with solutions for the problem of politically disengaged youth has attracted considerable attention over the past few years. Many agree that the current revolution in information technology provides a significant new opportunity to connect the youth to the electoral process since they are in the vanguard of computer-based media.</p><p>School-age children and young adults are in fact considerably over-represented among all computer and Internet users. In contrast to their under-representation in any form of political action, the youth enjoy a massive advantage when considering the daily use of information technology. Therefore, should the worlds of technology and politics be combined, there is a high possibility that the young and adults would be equally active.7 </p><p>Various proponents argue that using technology to modernize the election process, especially the implementation of electronic voting (e-voting) or remote internet voting, could boost electoral participation. Under this voting system, election data is recorded, stored, and processed in the form of DI (digital information). Everything is automated in this system from the registration process, vote casting, counting or poll generation. E-voting is thought to be a particularly important reform designed to encourage turnout among younger people.8 However, it is also...</p></li></ul>


View more >