Perspctive on the proposed electronic voting and transmission in Nigeria

Engr. Bayo Banjo writes on the proposed electronic voting and transmission

…As a Engineer and computer programmer, past president of Nigerian Internet Group, Past vice president of ATCON, I have a different opinion, which I have explained.

Or would you like me to explain again.

Our voting system has only one flaw, and that is in the COMPUTERISED VOTERS REGISTER. Other than that, it is fool proof, if procedures are followed.

Attached below is part of a post I made on another forum.

—————–

An election produces an end result for an individual, collating everyones vote. Any body that knows anything about computers and their systems know you have a ,”Supervisor(s)” or “Administrator(s)” who have TOTAL, TOTAL control over the system.

*Computerising our voting system will only make super billionaires out of the “administrator(s)” with no way to check, as data can easily be erased and generated.*

The present system we operate has only ONE flaw that is difficult to remedy and that is the electronic voter verification system. In that, an individual can be registered in two polling stations with no way for anyone to immediately detect (because it’s computerised).
If fast enough he can vote in different polling booths. The ink on his finger is meant to combat this. Other than this, the only other way to affect voting is to compromise the party agents or scatter the polling booth.

*Our system is perfect, and can only be compromised by internal cross party collusion.*

Remember the party reps (agents) witness the voting, counting and sign a paper with the results and are given a copy. So to alter this you have to settle (bribe) your opponents people so they can sign a fake result. Other than this you cannot tamper with the result in a polling booth.

You can tamper with the results of the election by getting polling booth results cancelled by violence. Thus each party can independently collate the results of each polling booth and arrive at a true figure.

Any differences can be explored and exposed in court.

*With a computerised system (without a proper paperwork backup) the administrator(s) can do anything. They can not only change, remove, implant any data, they can plant Algorithms that will adjust results live. And it doesn’t matter who you have as an admistrator “money” rules (everybody has a price). Even if you asked a foreign government or body to assist, they have their own preferred candidate.*

Keep in mind all this can be done with a few key strokes by the administrator at any location in the network and/or a hacker/foreign power that has or has created an access to the network.

*Computerising transmission of results does what exactly? If you want you can transmit fake results, so I don’t get all this noise about computerization. Total computerization of an election system is equivalent to asking the “administrator(s)” to choose your next president.*

Likewise any electronic transmission system is also at the mercy of administrators. They can do anything, AND LEAVE NO TRAIL. You must have a paper backup system.

Once you have a signed record from a polling booth, signed by all parties, how can you manipulate results? Every main party can collate the results independently from INEC, and any differences challenged.

*Some say it eliminates collation centres. And SO??? Are your so called transmission equipment not controlled by software, which is controlled by an “administrator”? Any programmer worth his salt can divert, change, make disappear any transmission of any data, and guess what, it can be done without leaving a trace.*

You are depending on the transmission of results to all be successful to a central data storage, in short you are collating results electronically. Again under the complete mercy of the “Administrators”….

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here