Namfrel pre-election assessment report

Access the full report at: http://bit.ly/1RYm2kl 

Assessment Summary

"At the time of this report there will be 35 days left to the May 9 presidential and general elections. If the current opinion polls hold, the elections for president and vice president may produce close results."

PEAM was pleased to hear that there is a good level of confidence in the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) among stakeholders. COMELEC has a particular challenge relating to the issuing of voters’ receipts. Voters want a sense of confidence that their votes will be counted as cast. Another issue relates to the timely and transparent reporting of vote totals. Swift and accurate reporting is essential, especially due to past experiences.

Free, fair, inclusive and credible elections depend also on a permissive environment, and we have heard concerns expressed about vote buying and private armed groups impeding access to polling centres.

In the event of close elections, it will be important for all stakeholders to respond in a measured way, and for COMELEC to be prepared to provide a clear narrative surrounding the conduct of the polls and the publication of results.

In addition to issues related to the present elections, this assessment also suggests a national dialogue concerning possible desynchronization of national and local elections, and the possibility of run-off elections to ensure future presidents and vice presidents have a strong mandate.

There is also work to be done to improve the access to their franchise of indigenous people, people with disabilities, and overseas Filipinos."

Election Transparency and Citizen Observation

by Telibert Laoc, National Democratic Institute (ndi.org) for the Multi-Stakeholder Conference on Electoral Integrity, 20 July, Yangon, Myanmar

Nonpartisan observation of elections first caught global attention in 1986. The National Citizens’ Movement for Free Elections (Namfrel), in the Philippines had just exposed manipulation of the election results by the government.  Their reports helped provide evidence that led to the eventual proclamation of the candidate whom the people had truly elected.

For the one million Namfrel volunteer poll watchers who were out on Election Day, the victory was deeper.  Each one felt that they had personally played a role in protecting the will of the voters.  Since then nonpartisan election observation spread around the world, thanks to NDI which spearheaded the effort in spreading this mode of citizen engagement.  There are now close to 100 countries having citizen observers in their elections. (GNDEM, 2014)

Keys to effective and efficient election observation

Election observation as you may have already known is about the process.  It is neither about the outcome nor is it about who wins or who loses.  Observers use a simple but systematic methodology to understand election-related processes, observe how they are carried out and how various stakeholders play their roles, and report the observations.  

Neutrality and independence are key to the observer's efficacy.

Observers are guided by the Declaration of Global Principles for Nonpartisan Election Observation and Monitoring by Citizen Organizations (GNDEM). I am told that you are all familiar with this declaration.  The declaration presents standards and codes of conduct for observers.  There are moves in the offing with election management bodies to adapt or share a similar declaration.  These agreements will improve the standardization of election administration and election observation.

The use of internationally recognized standards to observe elections and report findings is another key to effective citizens' observation of elections.

I look at election observation as a venue for ordinary citizens to get involved beyond voting.  Observing that electoral processes are carried out according to the set rules deepens citizen's confidence in the participative process. Hopefully their experience will encourage them to be more active in nation building and in similar affairs.  Civil society organizations that are  independent and impartial have effectively provided citizens this venue for participation. The training that the observer organizations provide certainly contributes to build capacity among the citizens.  However, the election management bodies are the main enablers for this form of value-adding citizen participation.

Wide and geographic and sectoral representative participation and an free and open space for citizens is key in effective and efficient election observation.

Expert Panel on International and Regional Best Practices in
 Elections and Transparency. (L-R) Dr Richard A Nuccio
(NDI), Vic Butler (IFES), Josh Hills (IRI) and this blogger. 

"Observing to improve"

There are a variety of modes of engagement for CSOs, but for practical purposes let me go into what might be most beneficial, which is "observing in order to improve". For the greater benefit and for the long run, the observation system should be set up to improve procedures, enhance participation, work for robust transparency, and full openness to all stakeholders.  This way every heart and mind is won and right at the beginning everyone is set up to benefit.

Here are a few suggestions along this line.

1.  Establish and agree on metrics or measures of efficiency of carrying out elections.  The adage goes, "one cannot improve that which cannot be measured.

• Start with the cost of administering elections. What is the cost of registering a voter? What is the cost of delivering the ballot to a voter? What is the cost of every invalid vote? What is the component cost of voter information? To what extent are voter information efforts penetrating rural areas and to all voter demographics? Explore other metrics, set benchmarks and work your way improving from there.
• Determine the cost of getting elected. What are the component costs for candidates? What is the component cost of the campaign:   organization, materials, transport, communication, and others? Explore what might the state provide or absorb so that the playing field  becomes more level?  Lastly, how should barriers to candidacy be managed so that the elections attract as much qualified candidates as possible?

2.  How should election results be reported so that it is easily audited by the voters themselves, and not require complicated training to understand them? How should technology be used to bring more confidence and credibility especially in the vote counting and aggregating processes?

3.  What should be the strategic approach to full disclosure of political and campaign finance?  How and where do parties get their resources? How should political parties be encouraged to report? 

What roles should institutions, like business and others, play to make the system focus on and reward compliance (rather than on uncovering irregularities)?

4.  Look at how political parties are up-skilling themselves or acquiring competencies and professionals so that it will be ready to govern, when its time comes for them to do so?

5.  How should civil society develop and acquire progressive skills so that it could appreciate political and electoral contexts and progressively engage in improving the quality of the elections?

6.  How should political parties develop and prepare to govern? How are leaders within the party prepared for the time when they are elected and take responsibilities at the national and local levels? How should political parties be assisted so that they improve the quality of candidates that voters have to choose from?

7.  On top of all these, how should popular (as opposed to cutting edge) technology be used to support any or all of the above efforts?

Every volunteer of Namfrel in the Philippines take to heart the saying that goes, "It is better to light a candle than to curse the darkness".  "Observing to improve", which is the entire theme that I am proposing before you, will require that the different actors work together dynamically and push forward in the same direction.

I wish you all the best in your efforts and thanks for the opportunity to speak before you today.

Incomplete reporting by the Comelec

At this link you will find the National Board of Canvassers' resolution 10-13 of June 5, 2013 officially proclaiming the results of the senatorial race: http://www.comelec.gov.ph/uploads/Elections/2013natloc/res/nboc_res_001013.pdf

A few questions begged to be asked:

1.  How many established and clustered precincts did these results come from?

2.  What is the total number of voters who voted?

3.  Of this number (in 2), how many voted for senators?

4.  What is the average number of candidates voted?

5.  How many over-voted for senators?

6.  How many ballots were spoiled or uncounted (this is referred to as a spoiled ballot rate)?

In this day and age of technology and electronics in elections, the figures would certainly help:

1) enhance the credibility of the election by making the results audit-able;

2) inform the political parties, candidates, academe, and voter outreach programs about how might voters view the candidates and why voters do not (historically) vote for 12 senators; and

3) guide candidates who wish to lodge a protest if results could be overturned if over-voted, blank votes or undervoted, and rejected or spoiled ballots are reviewed.

For the May polls, there were 52,014,846 [http://bit.ly/ZEd52D, Comelec] voters, and 39,898,992 voted (turnout of 75.72 percent) [http://bit.ly/15W1D7D, Rappler]. The Comelec tallied the total valid votes  for senators at 298,625,797. So the fill up rate is 7.6.

How would all the other contests -- party-list, district representatives to Congress, provincial governors, vice-governors, provincial councilors, mayors, vice-mayors, and local councilors -- look like if all the figures above were reported alongside the results of the voting?

Comelec is remiss in their duty in reporting election results.  Seriously, I think the Comelec needs to just be serious about their work.  What do you think?

Report on the Conduct of the Random Manual Audit

Below is an excerpt from the full report, which is viewable from this link:  http://bit.ly/YR6XoY

On page 7:

Some Questions for the Comelec and Smartmatic

What could explain these error rates?  What possible underlying root causes might   explain these?  How should the candidates and political parties interpret these discrepancies?  How are the various RMA results consolidated? If a variance of 16.67 percent, similar to the one in this RMA, is noted in the 2013 polls, say in the senatorial position, what would the Comelec and Smartmatic do?

How are checks made on the canvassing process?  How will the public or candidates and parties know if the canvass results are accurate?  How should the audit of the canvassing results look like?

Discrepancy Between AES and RMA

Section 13 of the G.I. BEI states that “In the event of  discrepancy between the AES and RMA results still exceeds the allowable margin of ten (10) votes per  candidate per position (emphasis supplied), the RMA committee shall...”.

What does “allowable margin” mean? What is the basis for the “10 votes per candidate per position”?

The Random Manual Audit

Results

The highest error rate registered between the machine-counted and the RMA-appreciated votes is 16.67 percent. The lowest is -1.64 percent. The Commission on Elections (Comelec), through its machine supplier, Smartmatic, guarantees an error rate of 0.005 percent or less.

The photo is from a section of the Comelec’s RMA Minutes/Report (form No. 0916). The forth column (from the right) shows the variance between the machine-counted and the RMA team-appreciated results.

Positions Audited

The audit of the results of the precinct count optical scan (PCOS) machine was done for  40 senatorial posts, 15 district representatives posts, and 12 mayoral posts. Of the total 67 posts audited, 14 of these showed a variance.

Conduct of the RMA

At the close of the polling at 1900h on 02 February 2013, the board of election inspectors transmitted the results of the machine count to three servers, namely: the central server; to the canvassing board of Quezon city; and to the KBP server.  After which the ballot box was  resealed (with packing tape and signed by the board, to make tamper-evident). After the 27 copies of the election returns were printed, the board turned the ballot box over to the RMA team. This was around 2100h, and with the presence of observers and the media.

Immediately after opening the box, the team counted the ballots. They counted 159 in the box. But the election return showed that the machine counted 158 ballots. After a query by the observers and the media, the team revealed that there was one diagnostic ballot that was the first one fed into the machine before the voting started. This ballot was later identified as having a handwritten mark  “diagnostic”, and contained no votes on it.

One of the five-member board read the votes on the ballot, and the one seated beside him checked that the reading was correct. Two members recorded the votes on the audit returns. Another did the same using the tally board that was posted on the wall for the observers to track the progress of the counting.

Tallying of 67 posts from 158 ballots took five hours, with the RMA closed at 0200h the following day.

The audit was conducted after the mock polls held at the University of the Philippines Integrated School in Diliman, Quezon city.  The Philippine elections scheduled on 10 May 2013, will be the second such exercise where the PCOS of Smartmatic, Inc., will be used.

Photos (unannotated) of the RMA are available for download at this link: http://goo.gl/zLWtE.

(About the author: Telibert is a member of the national council of the National Citizens' Movement for Free Elections (namfrel.com.ph). The organization was formed in 1983 and is recognized as the first in the world to field volunteer domestic election observers. He served as Namfrel's executive director from 1996 to 2003, and became a member of the board in 2009. He has served in various international assignments as election observer, organized similar domestic election observer groups in Afghanistan (2004) and in Timor Leste (2006). He has also served as resident country director in Timor Leste and in Papua New Guinea (2012) for the National Democratic Institute (ndi.org).)

Witness to moving volunteerism

The International Visitors' “Volunteerism in the U.S.” was the program that I had the privilege to participate in 2001. It almost did not push through because it started just three days after 9/11. Little did I know that from that unfortunate event of 9/11 also flowed the most moving and inspiring acts of individual and collective volunteerism among Americans. It was indeed one of the best times to see volunteerism in action.

The lessons from the program and the given context within which it took place were many and unforgettable. That 90 percent of all donations in the U.S. are from individuals (the rest from corporations), and that the value of contributions through the non-profit sector is indeed a significant amount relative to the country's GDP showed proofs of not just generosity, but also dynamism and confidence in that sector. There are organizations, whose representatives I've met that pride of their ability to manage and direct to effective efforts acts of volunteerism, like donations of personal time, funds and those in-kind. I concluded, that these are among the trademarks of a strong nation; where people show concern and are willing to share the fruits of their labor with others.

In Afghanistan (2004-2005) and in Timor-Leste (2006-2008), I had the privilege to share my passion and experiences in the field of organizing and operationalizing multilaterally-supported non-partisan domestic election observer groups. This was through the U.S.-based organization, the National Democratic Institute (NDI). The Institute's work was significant and its programs were directly making positive impacts in people's lives by engaging them in the process of establishing democracy in their country. In many occasions with program partners, moved by my experience from the International Visitor Program, I would remind them that the funds that we are using to support the domestic election observation effort are fruits of labor from U.S. citizens. To bring it closer and more personal, I would add that some of them are my relatives. Through their taxes, they have entrusted a portion of their hard-earned income to contribute to the Afghan and Timorese nation building. Therefore, these funds are to be used well and accounted properly.

I believe I was chosen as a participant in the IVP because of my close to two decades of volunteer work with the Philippines' National Citizens' Movement for Free Elections (Namfrel). Created in 1983 to thwart clear and imminent threats by government to subvert the people's will in the ballot, the movement pioneered that brand of citizen engagement in elections and was indeed first-in-the-world. The cause for clean and honest elections that are reflective of the true will of the people allowed Namfrel to inspire one million individuals to contribute time, talent and treasure in order to protect the integrity of the ballot. From the movement's success in 1986 when it exposed massive fraud in the presidential Snap Elections of February, that model had since been spread and emulated in many countries.

One thing common that founds volunteerism, be it in the Philippines, in the U.S., in Afghanistan, or in Timor Leste, and perhaps elsewhere, is the “power of the ask”. A worthy cause still has to appeal to the generosity and goodwill of people. Only when asked, and therefore made part of a worthy effort, will people's hearts truly open and share. I carry this affirmation wherever I go. Thanks to the affirmations through the International Visitor Program, the National Democratic Institute and Namfrel. It is indeed a light carry.

In Gratitude: Thank you, Lord, for making me witness to inspiring and moving acts of volunteerism. I pray, that I, too, would be able to move and inspire others in my own.