Why PH must adopt a parallel manual vote count system

Originally published in Manila Bulletin

In a democracy, few things are as fundamental as the accurate counting of votes. The legitimacy of elections — and thus the stability of a nation's political system — hinges directly upon trust in the electoral process. For the Philippines, a country with a rich democratic tradition yet persistent concerns regarding electoral transparency, adopting a parallel manual count system similar to that employed by the United States could significantly enhance the credibility and reliability of our elections.

The counting of votes in the United States varies depending on the locality and the technology available. Many jurisdictions use optical scanners to read paper ballots, while others employ touch-screen systems or ballot-marking devices. Despite technological differences, the common thread across these jurisdictions is the consistent presence of a manual recount and verification process. This parallel manual count serves as an essential check on automated systems, ensuring accuracy and fostering public trust.

In contrast, the Philippines has increasingly relied on automated counting systems, which, while fast, have repeatedly raised suspicions and concerns among voters and watchdog groups due to their lack of transparency and vulnerability to potential manipulation. Unlike the transparent manual recounts that accompany automated tabulation in many US counties, the Philippines often relies heavily on automated results without adequate verification, leaving room for skepticism and dispute.

A parallel manual count system provides an additional layer of security and transparency. Human oversight significantly reduces the likelihood of systemic errors going unnoticed, whether due to technical malfunction or intentional tampering. Manual recounts also allow electoral bodies to identify discrepancies quickly, rectify them promptly, and communicate these corrections transparently to electoral stakeholders — including political parties, election observers, and the general public.

Implementing this system in the Philippines would serve two critical functions. First, it would act as a deterrent against electoral fraud. Knowing that votes will undergo rigorous verification discourages any attempts at tampering. Second, it builds voter confidence by demonstrating a clear and tangible commitment to transparency. Voters witnessing the verification process firsthand, or at least through reliable observers, are far less likely to question the integrity of election outcomes.

Critics might argue that manual counting is archaic, costly, or slow. Yet, the value of democratic trust far outweighs any short-term inconvenience or cost. Efficient manual counting procedures, alongside the latest technology, can streamline the process to minimize delays. Indeed, the US model shows clearly that technology and manual oversight can coexist efficiently, each strengthening the other's integrity.

Ultimately, the adoption of a parallel manual count system in the Philippines is about safeguarding democracy itself. Electoral integrity is not just about getting results swiftly — it’s about getting them right. Incorporating a system of dual counting mechanisms, as practiced in many US localities, would significantly bolster the Philippines' electoral process, promoting a healthier democracy and renewing citizens' faith in their most fundamental democratic right: The power of their vote.

This opinion column is published under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0). You are free to share, adapt, and redistribute this content, provided appropriate credit is given to the author and original source.