In
evaluating the PCOS eventually used in the 2010 and 2013 elections, the
Comelec conducted a simple test of the machine using a few hundred test
ballots with a total of 20,000 vote marks. Having found no discrepancy
between the manual count and the PCOS count, the Special Bids and Awards
Committee declared the PCOS machine 100 percent accurate.
As
required by law, an audit of the PCOS in randomly selected clustered
precincts was conducted after the close of election operations on
election day. This audit activity is referred to as Random Manual Audit
(RMA).
The
reported PCOS accuracy rate in 2010 was 99.6 percent or a discrepancy
of 80 votes out of 20,000 vote marks between the manual count and PCOS
count. In 2013 it was 99.9747 percent or a discrepancy of 5 votes for
every 20,000 vote marks between the manual count and PCOS count.
But
in both 2010 and 2013 the RMA Team (RMAT) arbitrarily set aside the
required 99.995 percent accuracy rate declaring that “Based on
ninety-nine percent (99 percent) accuracy rate, the allowable margin of
variance was set at one percent (equivalent to less than 10 votes’
difference in absolute value for every 1,000 valid votes counted).” This
led me to think: How did the RMAT determine the accuracy rate of 99
percent? What data did the RMAT base it on?
Well,
trawling the internet for information, I found a company
(http://www.abbyy.com/) that specializes in mark recognition
technologies, including optical mark recognition, which is the
underlying technology in the PCOS. The company must have a basis to
declare and publish a 99.995 percent accuracy rate of its products. That
basis must have been the results gathered from exhaustive tests of its
products.
In
setting aside the 99.995 percent accuracy rate, the 2013 RMAT explained
that “Since most of the ‘variance’ can be attributed to human errors or
clerical errors, aiming for a higher accuracy rate to as high as 99.995
percent (i.e. 1 vote difference in absolute value for 20,000 valid
votes counted) could be statistically improbable.” Revealing. Does it
mean that rather than simply assessing the accuracy of the PCOS, the
RMAT aimed to match the 99.995 percent accuracy rate? The 2010 and 2013
RMA Reports show that the RMAT went through several iterations when it
found that the manual count and PCOS count differed by at least 10 votes
Failing to meet its goal, it declared the 99.995 percent accuracy rate
statistically improbable to match.
Let’s
look at the potential impact of a 99 percent accuracy rate vis-à-vis a
99.995 percent accuracy rate. Let’s assume 52 million registered voters.
Let us also assume that 80 percent went to the voting precincts to
vote. This means that on election day 41.6 million voters actually
voted. Let us further assume that all of them voted for a president or
vice president. An accuracy rate of 99 percent, using our assumed
numbers, would mean a discrepancy of 416,000 votes between the manual
count and the PCOS count. On the other hand, an accuracy rate of 99.995
percent translates to a discrepancy of 2,080 votes between the manual
count and the PCOS count. 416,000 vote vis-à-vis 2,080 vote is an ocean
of a difference!
Let’s
Face IT! The numbers have spoken and numbers don’t lie. The PCOS
accuracy findings in the 2010 and 2013 RMA are obviously below the
99.995 percent accuracy rate set by Comelec. The RMAT conveniently
avoided to explicitly and unequivocally declare that the PCOS counts did
not meet the accuracy rate requirement. Instead, the RMAT, without any
basis, lowered the accuracy bar to 99 percent to show that the PCOS
accuracy rates in 2010 and 2013 RMA are better than its prescribed
level.
Unacceptable!
source: Manila Times Column of Lito Averia
No comments:
Post a Comment