 |
| A Ghanian voter going through the biometric verification process (Photo:UK in Ghana Flickr) |
Although in this blog
we promote the adoption of voting technologies as a mean to enhance efficiency
and transparency, we understand the fact that having appropriate technology is
not enough to guarantee success in election administration. A trouble-free implementation of the technology is paramount to achieve legitimate results.
Also, the technology to be used on election day needs to be properly audited
and tested, and mechanisms to solve unforeseen problems need to be developed.
Two drastically
different experiences serve to illustrate this point: the Venezuelan
presidential elections held in October 7, and the December
7 elections in Ghana.
In Venezuela, and for
the first time in the history of elections, biometric devices were used to
authenticate 100% of the voters. The elections ran smoothly, voting ended on
time, and the results were published only two hours after polls closed.
Opposition leaders conceded the defeat immediately. The very few problems
encountered by voters on election day were solved according to a well designed
contingency plan.
On the other hand, on December 7,
Ghana headed back to the polls for the tenth election since democracy was
reestablished in 1992. Although Ghana took
an important step to increase electoral efficiency and transparency by
automating this part of the electoral cycle, a poor implementation of the
biometric system led to important setbacks that forced officials to extend
voting for an extra day. According to the Coalition
of Domestic Election Observers, 18% of polling stations across Ghana had
some kind of problem with the biometric devices. In those regions were problems
were reported, 33% of polling stations had difficulties. An inconvenience of this magnitude gave
all the right to the opposition parties that lost the elections to complain,
and served as basis to support their fraud claims. Political instability
followed the elections, and post electoral violence erupted in certain cities.
A few
facts explain the different outcomes that biometric authentication had of in these two countries. In first place, the
Venezuelan electoral commission was executing its eleventh automated election. The
experienced gathered in eight years alongside Smartmatic, helped enormously. For Ghana, this was the first automation in
their short democratic history.
Another determining
factor was the fact that the Venezuelan platform was thoroughly revised prior
to Election Day. More than 22 audits, tests and pilots were carried out in
order to guarantee that the system worked properly. Technicians from all
parties involved participated. In Ghana, the biometric platform was not
sufficiently revised and that is one of the main arguments used by opposition parties to explain the fraud
allegedly committed.
Also, in Venezuela,
automation covered the entire election, from end-to-end, whereas in Ghana only
the authentication relies on technology. Opposition parties claiming fraud in
Ghana had little or no records to sustain their allegations.
Authorities must
ensure to build trust in the platform by allowing everyone to audit and review
the system. Ghana and Venezuela are two good examples of what to do, and what
not to do when it comes to automation.
