EVM �tampered with� in Venezuela
Innocent Selatlhwa | Friday August 4, 2017 15:27
The opposition parties have made it clear that they do not want the use of the EVM with the Botswana Congress Party (BCP) having already filed a court case to set aside the EVM and the Venezuela case vindicates their position.
Media outlets around the world report that the Venezuelan government reported false turnout figures for its contentious election over the weekend. The New York Times states that the government announced a tally that had been altered by at least one million votes, a software company involved in setting up voting systems for the country said.
“We know, without any doubt, that the turnout of the recent election for a National Constituent Assembly was manipulated,” the company, Smartmatic, said in a statement. It is reported that the vote was part of an ambitious plan by the government to consolidate power. President Nicolás Maduro instructed Venezuelans to select from a list of trusted allies of the governing party including his wife, who will rewrite the nation’s Constitution and rule Venezuela with virtually unlimited authority until they finish their work.
The National Electoral Council said Sunday that nearly 8.1 million people had voted, just over 40% of eligible voters. But many Venezuelans rejected those figures as unrealistically high, pointing to the absence of lines or crowds at polling places. And no major monitoring missions watched over the vote. Smartmatic said although Venezuela’s election process includes “a series of auditing systems” that are “impossible to circumvent,” no election monitors from the opposition were present to watch for evidence as it came in.
Opposition parties had boycotted the vote, declining to participate in the election or review the returns on Sunday. The absence of auditors, the company said, allowed for a manipulation of the turnout numbers. Tibisay Lucena, the president of the electoral commission, issued a statement rejecting Smartmatic’s claims as “irresponsible” and threatening legal action against the company.
Contacted to comment on the reports, The Electronic Voting System coordinator Gabriel Seeletso would not be dragged to discuss the Venezuela case. “I cannot comment on those reports because I have never come across them,” he said. Seeletso also objected to being led to the reports so he could make a comment. For his part, BCP spokesperson Dithapelo Keorapetse reiterated their rejection of the machine.
“They are contrary to principles of open and transparent elections. Second, if they are going to be introduced they must be put to referendum. In relying on foreign machines to which we have no access to the source code, we are placing our national security and ourselves in the hands of a foreign power. How do we do this without even questioning it?” he argued.
Keorapetse said the integrity of elections is a vital aspect of national security. “Just look at the chaos in the US. More evidence around the world is emerging on the risk of using EVM and Venezuela is the latest example. Recently in the US, evidence also emerged of possible manipulation.
These cases further substantiate our arguments against EVM,” he lamented. He said the German, Dutch and Irish have rejected EVMs because there is no way to ascertain the vote other than by the machine itself. Keorapetse said they contend that opposition has always advocated reforms in the electoral laws. “Moving the IEC away from OP, party funding, restrictions on private donations etc.
It has also called for reforms in the manner in which the vote is conducted, but these need to be done cautiously and in recognition of Botswana’s voting demography. We do not want reforms simply for the sake of reforms. There must be a valid and rational benefit to such reforms.
With our population there is simply no need for EVMs,” he said. He further added that concerns on long queues, delays in submitting votes to a central office etc can be addressed better through other legislative interventions that promote transparency as opposed to making vote counting less transparent.