Ballot-making device: An alternative AES

THE previous article asked the question: Can the proposed hybrid election system be improved?

This question is raised because the proposed hybrid election system has met opposition due to the manual voting and vote counting process involved.

The voting public has experienced the use of the vote counting machine (VCM) with paper ballots where the names of candidates are arranged per position and the voter simply marks or shades the oval that precedes the name of his chosen candidate. The Commission on Elections (Comelec) might continue to use the same paper-based election system since voters have gotten familiar with it.

A shift back to manual voting and vote counting would be confusing, some quarters argue.

The hybrid election system proposal came about because the automated vote counting component is non-transparent. Nobody sees how the VCM reads the ballot, how votes are recorded and tabulated, how the votes are counted, how the election return is prepared and finalized, and how the election return is transmitted.

With the adoption of the paperbased election system, the rules of appreciating the ballot have changed. Said rules have never been publicly explained since the system was adopted and implemented in 2010. This is the reason why some still doubt the election results despite the implementation of transparency measures like the local source code review, printing of the voter-verifiable paper audit trail (VVPAT), the random manual audit, and comparing the printed copy of the election returns with the electronically transmitted counterpart.

Vote counting has simply been done in secret in the last five national and local elections.

While the National Citizens’ Movement for Free Elections (Namfrel) continues to support the hybrid election system proposal, it is exerting efforts to search for better alternatives.

Namfrel recognized the opportunity to improve the proposed hybrid election system when the Comelec decided to include a QR code in the VVPAT in the 2022 national and local elections.

QR (quick response) codes are those small black and white figures consisting of small squares typically arranged in a square pattern found on product packaging. In each of the three corners of the square pattern is a square within a square. QR codes were initially used as product identifiers but have since grown in application. Today, QR codes are also used to point to websites, identify companies, or used by online payment systems to identify merchants. Today, customers with smartphones are able to scan QR codes to effect payment for goods and/or services purchased.

A VVPAT, on the other hand, is printed by the VCM after the ballot inserted by the voter into the VCM is scanned. The printout is similar in physical appearance to a tape receipt printed by a point of sales system or cash register. It contains the names of candidates for each elective position selected by the voter. Encoded in the QR code in the VVPAT are the names of the candidates being voted for.

The VVPAT with the printed QR code presents itself as an opportunity for the counting of votes to be done manually but with the assistance of electronic devices capable of reading the QR code, making the vote counting transparent.

Namfrel initially proposed to the Comelec, specifically to the random manual audit committee, to use the QR code printed on the VVPAT as another way to verify the vote count results generated by randomly selected VCMs. Namfrel developed an application that can read the QR code to assist in the random manual audit.

Building on the idea, VVPATs could instead be used as the official ballot since it shows a list of candidates per elective post selected by the voter. The QR code which contains the same list on the VVPAT makes it digitally readable. The