May 25, 2007 · Posted in: 2004 Electoral Fraud, 2007 Elections, i Report Features
What quick count?
SUDDENLY, Namfrel’s much-vaunted speedy parallel tally of the votes has gone slow-mo.
Not so long ago, the organization otherwise known as the National Citizens’ Movement for Free Elections used to be way ahead of the Commission on Elections (Comelec) when it came to counting ballots. But as the sidebar to the latest piece in i Report‘s election series observes, today it’s the other way around. The mighty have fallen…asleep.
Actually, Namfrel has been suffering from one system breakdown to another in the last two weeks. Perhaps it’s nerves; after the fiasco of 2004 where its experiment with SMS went awfully awry, Namfrel can be forgiven for still being a bit jittery when it comes to using technology. Now, however, even some observers are developing tics just from watching its performance.
Read on at pcij.org.
3 Responses to What quick count?
naykika
May 26th, 2007 at 9:04 am
“In truth, no one wanted to believe that Namfrel could be part of any election fraud, wittingly or unwittingly. This was, after all, the organization that stood up before a dictator in 1986.” Qoute from the post above.
The truth, no President of the Philippines, Senator or Representatives should ever be suspected of serious wrongdoings, much less charged of such, after all, they were sworn before God and Country to uphold the Law and the Nation’s Constitution.
joselu
May 28th, 2007 at 5:11 pm
Namfrel can be only as effective as the entire stoneage electoral system allows it to be.
I just hope we can be faster learners.
I hope that insted of being “independent” minded kuno. We can really learn to work as a team & learn to focus to make things work.
Work together to come up w/ systems & practical solutions to make elections simple & responsive to the needs of the country.
Expecting that NAMFREL can give a quick count is just an exsample of the great disconnect there is between misplaced “dreams” & bructal “realities”
atyick
May 29th, 2007 at 9:56 am
We should continue (and rightly so) to look closely at how the COMELEC does its count. Looking for ways to suggest to them how their systems and processes can be improved to raise the credibility of the results that they proclaim. Ultimately, it’s their word that is deemed official, hence, it’s really the one that counts.
On the other hand, we also value the existence of volunteer groups who also do parallel counting. But i haven’t heard a single peep that carefully, critically, thoroughly scrutinizes the procedures of these parallel counts.
Just because these are volunteer groups does not necessarily mean that they don’t have an agenda of their own. And then there is the effect of showering mistrust on the election process in general. When official figures differ from the parallel counts, everyone cries foul. And the immediate reaction is to doubt the official count.
This is not in defense of COMELEC, but rather a simple reminder that our electoral system is centered on COMELEC and its credibility. Thus, the effort, i think, should mostly pay attention to COMELEC’s credibility rather than on the efforts of the parallel counts.
I wonder if all these “volunteers” would gladly take the COMELEC’s job. That, i think, would be a great step. Why? If their parallel counts are truly credible based on the systems and procedures that they put up, then it should be no problem for them to do the same thing for the COMELEC.
I guess, getting inside COMELEC is another issue altogether.