On EVMs - and Post Truth Elections

Rarely does the opportunity (and the urge) to posit one's views occur so frequently. However, the recent controversy over Electronic Voting Machines got me thinking. In 2015, I had the opportunity for getting counting conducted with the traditional ballot papers. It took 28 hrs. 28 hrs of wakeful alertness, dealing with impromptu protests, genuine mistakes, malicious 'mistakes', and generous recounts. Still, by the end of the day, we had 3 different roadblocks, by candidates (losers, obviously) demanding another recount. Contrast it with recent EVM counting, which was over in most places within 7 hours.

The Honorable Election Commission has gone on a high tech highway in the new millenium. With due respect, most of these 'hi tech' initiatives have made life difficult for the officers conducting the election. (With the staff that we have to rely on!) The EVM is a huge exception to this rule. It has been the biggest blessing to all Returning Officers. It has ended the scope for invalid votes, ending the opportunity for biased returning officers ruling as per their leaning - one main point of contention between candidates. It gives consolidated results - which ends the scope for unscrupulous counting staff making bundles of 45 ballot papers (or 55) and counting it as 50. Which ends the scope for loser candidates lengthening their 'stay in the fight', by demanding recount after recount, using their 'supporters' to mount pressure on the administration. By removing the idea that the count of votes can change on different recounts (as it frequently does happen in ballot paper counting, due to a combination of human error as well as human mala fide), it removes any doubt as to the finality of the loss of the losers, thus depriving any smidgen of legitimacy to their attempts to 'protest' for a recount.

For those not involved in the Election process, here is a quick summary of the EVM supply chain. Usually, most places do not have the requisite number of EVMs to begin with. Some 6 months before the elections, EVMs are usually transported from some other place where they were in use recently. This location is randomly chosen by the Commission. Then, some time before the elections, each of these machines (its two components - Ballot Unit as well as Control Unit) is checked, in front of the representatives of all the political parties. Mock poll is conducted on them - which means that a number of votes are randomly polled on these machines, in front of these political representatives, and then the results thereof is shown. Any machine which shows any mismatch between the polling and the counting has to be weeded out. (I am yet to see a single such case.) Then, after the nomination process, when the list of contesting candidates (the ballot paper) is finalized, the Returning Officer gets the EVMs prepared for polling. At this stage too, all political representatives (and even the independent candidates) are invited to witness. Again, a mock poll is conducted, with similar conditions as before. Finally, on the day of the poll, before the actual poll starts, a mock poll is carried out in front of the agents of all the candidates, at each and every booth! So there is no scope for 'loading' an EVM in favour of some candidate. Again, an EVM is not connected to any network, so it cannot be 'hacked' online. If one says that someone is manipulating the EVMs post poll, after breaking myriads of seals, then one can only say that the humble ballot box is even less secure, for after breaching all the seals, manipulating a computer chip would still be tougher as compared to, say, simply replacing the polled ballot papers inside a box!

If seen within the recent period, the political objections against EVMs would seem partisan. However, today's winners were equally graceless losers in their times (I won't take names, and I shall leave the googling to you. I can give a hint - the movie, Rajneeti, released in 2010, had a scene inspired from those allegations.) Hence, it is, in a long run, a bipartisan assault against a Constitutional (and largely Administrative) body. 

So, why is this issue more urgent now, as compared to 8 years ago. Well, we now live, officially, in a post-truth world. Here, the facts can be twisted and presented ( or plain lies substituted for the truth) on the 24x7 media, which also likes a good controversy to run its mill. Without proving anything in a court of law, the detractors can vitiate public opinion and trust, the bedrock of electoral democracy. The Election Commission (and all the State Commissions) are manned majorly by ex Civil Servants. Any attempt, by Civil Servants, to counter the malicious lies in the public arena, against politicians, would come out very feeble, for this is the politicians' playground - the press, the TV, the radio. Today one was witness to an Honorable SEC defending the 'safeguards' of an EVM, amidst vociferous (but illogical) detraction by politicians. It was like watching baby seals getting clubbed! The efforts of the Honorable Commission need to be in an arena where facts and logic still matter - the Court of Law. They should demand an injunction against irresponsible comments against the EVMs, unless backed by proof, which the Court would satisfy itself over. In essence, a judicial gag order - the kind one of our political luminaries had got when he was videographed in some compromised positions. If the same is not done at the earliest, the cacophony would smear the whole electoral process with doubt, and thus shave off legitimacy. Not only for this time, but for times to come. Who knows it might pressurise the powers that be into bringing back the ballot paper, with its associated mess. Then, deprived of the painfully obvious judgement of the EVM, the elections will again be mired in a thousand fold louder cacophony - throwing up no clear victors or vanquished. It will be, truly, a post-truth election!