Janette Toral posted a call for a discussion of issues relevant to the 2010 Philippine presidential elections, tagging a lot of bloggers in the process.
Instead of one post, I will make a series of post about this topic, and it will be an issue or two per post, hopefully. For every post, I will state an issue, explain why it should be an issue, and share my thoughts on the issue.
If you ask me why we should bother ourselves with the issue of electoral reforms, my answer will be short and sweet: 2005.
The Hello, Garci controversy had shook this nation from its forced stupor. Faced with the prospect of an Estrada comeback via proxy, most of us decided to choose the lesser evil, a choice that no one should have made since there are other choices during that election year (2004). After Gloria Arroyo “won”, everyone but the opposition had decided to stop thinking about politics and instead “channel their efforts into more constructive means of change,” effectively surrendering to the rotten political system we have. But when those wiretap tapes surfaced, many had realized that choosing the lesser evil was a stupid choice after all.
The controversy had shown that the electoral system we have now is easy to maneuver and manipulate. Before 2007, many groups called for electoral reforms, first through automation, and second by appointing competent people to the Commission on Elections. Both came to naught.
Why should this be an issue? At this point, we can all agree that our electoral system is broken, and it needs fixing. And we don’t act now, 2010 will be just a repeat of 2004 and 2007, with almost the same cast of characters. The operators are still around, and those who have retired are probably replaced with people trained for “special operations.” If we want to have leaders as truly elected by the people, we must not allow operators to impose their will on us.
How do we go about it? Two fronts attacking a single problem – fixing a broken system. First front – eliminating the chance for cheats to beat the system. Many people mistakenly think that automation is the end-all and be-all of electoral reforms. Not only this is short-sighted thinking, it is stupid. Like any system, an automated system is composed of several parts, and the weakest link in that system? People. And that is the second front – eliminating the cheats.
That is why appointing the right people for impending vacancies in the Comelec is crucial. These people must be highly competent, upright, honest, brave, and without integrity problems. The nominees should be selected carefully, and the people must be allowed to scrutinize the nominees’ records and voice their opposition. The nomination or selection process should be transparent.
Anyway, I will not tackle the first part, since it is technical in nature. Let’s leave that to the geeks. I think The Jester-in-Exile has a series of blog posts about election automation. The only thing I can share is KISS – keep it simple, stupid!
Still, it all boils down to a trustworthy bureaucracy – people, in a word. If we allow operators to remain within the system, any reform is useless. If we allow people of questionable reputation to sit in Comelec, reforms are impossible.
How do you think should we go with electoral reforms? Share your thoughts at the comments.
—
Don’t forget to vote in my poll, in case you haven’t voted yet.
Pingback: Election » Blog Archive » 2010 Philippine Elections: Important issues, 2
Pingback: Politics » 2010 Philippine Elections: Important issues, 2
As a tech guy, I have to say that election automation is a very bad idea. Remember the Diebold voting machine controversies in the last two U.S. presidential elections? Machines make elections less and not more transparent. I’d rather stick with traditional hand-counted paper ballots.
How do we improve the electoral system? First of all, the current plurality voting method needs to go. A preferential voting method would be a big improvement.
While we’re at it, we might also want to “improve” the voting population. For example, things would be a lot better if non-taxpayers aren’t allowed to vote. Of course, incumbent officials would never agree to that because they love the squatter votes.
joyfulchicken’s last blog post..No “pets” allowed
Pingback: presidential nominees | New shop info
If they will do any computerization effort, they should start building the infrastructure this year. To encourage transparency and fairness in the process, they should not get stakeholder association participants where its members are also bidders in the project.
The last computerization attempt where the government lost almost a billion pesos and those machines occupying warehouse space at this time (an addition to the list of palpak na IT government projects) should not happen again and resolve on what to do with those machines.
It will be interesting to see if the new COMELEC leadership has the fortitude to get that done.
Janette Toral’s last blog post..My FAQ on Election Blogging in the Philippines
a few takes on poll automation:
http://planet.naga.gov.ph/2007/05/22/notes-on-automating-our-elections/ of willy prilles, jr
http://www.gmanews.tv/story/43170/PCIJ-The-case-for-computerized-elections of ruben canlas
http://philippinecommentary.blogspot.com/2007/05/road-to-automation-part-1.html of djb
http://jester-in-exile.blogspot.com/2007/02/e-lections-shield-against-poll-fraud.html , http://jester-in-exile.blogspot.com/2007/02/e-lections-2-power-of-text.html the jester-in-exile’s two-parter
the jester-in-exile’s last blog post..Smart. Simply Frustrating.
“things would be a lot better if non-taxpayers aren’t allowed to vote.”
tempting, yes, seductive, even — but to do so is taking away the right of suffrage, one of the fundamental civil rights of every filipino citizen.
advocating that non-taxpayers should not have the vote is no different from saying that the differently-abled should not have the vote, or saying that women should not have the vote.
the jester-in-exile’s last blog post..Smart. Simply Frustrating.
And no different from saying that children should not have the vote? 😛 I see your point though. I guess we just have different views on the value of elections and democracy in general.
joyfulchicken’s last blog post..No “pets” allowed
Hmmm. A Php1000 poll tax before you can vote? =P
Besides, you don’t vote anyway, right?
Yeah, but I don’t pay taxes either, so that’s OK 😛
Just kidding, BIR, just kidding.
I don’t think anyone would (or should) agree to a poll tax, but what about using ITRs as voter IDs?
joyfulchicken’s last blog post..Mr. T insults yo momma
HOW, REALLY, DID MANUEL BAMBA VILLAR, JR. GET TO BE RICH? It may bear and serve the Filipino nation well to investigate and know that Manny Villar may actually have broken through from Tondo-ragged accountant to billionaire-rich presidentiable by allowing himself to be used as a foreign investor’s dummy in the Philippine real estate business. You see, the conduct of real estate business in the Philippines is made exclusive by law to Filipino citizens, necessarily because its affairs involve sensitive issues that affect territory, patrimony, and national security. Wasn’t that a debonair American who was smilingly visible every day at the offices of Crown Asia, Inc., way back before the Villars became political aspirants? Unfortunately, sighting American presence at the Crown Asia, Inc. organization deteriorates to zero visibility in hot election weather, especially nowadays! As Manny Villar embarked on a political career, it naturally became strategically imperative to avoid flaks of damaging controversy about being economically beholden to foreign influence, especially from nationalist camps of the likes of then Senator Teofisto Guingona Jr. who was one among legislators instrumental in passing general law limiting conduct of real estate business in the Philippines to Filipinos only. In fact, it was from 1997 to 1999 that the bespactacled, middle-aged, happy American investor (silent or express?) of Crown Asia, Inc. was last regularly observed at the 18th Floor of Cityland Herrera Tower. Most of us often have “humble,” sometimes “rotten,” beginnings; yet being transparent about such beginnings can do more good than harm. The key to the answer may reach as far back as auditing times with SGV, or perhaps good Senator Manuel Villar would like to comment on this matter at this time?