Home
Loading...
You are here:  Home  >  Opinion  >  Current Article

Our catastrophic voting system

  /   21 Comments   /   3540 Views

Let’s talk about voting, Mahmoud Salem writes

Mahmoud Salem

Mahmoud Salem

As we enter the seventh week of the post-30 June transitional era, there has been a notable absence of discussions over what this next phase’s priorities should be. The external and internal focus has been the Muslim Brotherhood sit-ins and the situation in Sinai, which are important in their own right, but in no way should they distract us from focusing on the issues that will define us as a nation, and most importantly, on the mechanisms of future conflict resolution.

Let’s talk about voting here for a minute.

In the past two and a half years there have been five different occasions on which Egyptians went to the ballot box and exercised their new found right at voting, but there hasn’t been a single time one could actually verify the integrity of the process or the results. Report after report citing thousands of election violations and incidents of voter fraud have been released, and not a single investigation was launched.

The few local or international observers that actually manage to get a permit to observe the voting process all issue reports that detail the systemic violations that occur and even they admit of only being able to cover a miniscule number of polling stations at best. But even if they do manage to bring out thousands of trained observers to cover all of the polling stations, the numerous ways or levels that a person or a party running for elections can rig the votes turns the entire process into nothing more than a well-organised farce. To illustrate my point, allow me to cite the different ways and levels of which one can commit voter fraud in our great democracy.

Level one: Direct individual vote buying, also known as the chump’s game. Not only is it a costly endeavour (a single vote can be sold from anywhere from EGP100-200) it’s also very hard to verify for the fraudster. That being said, it happens, and is an effective method at getting a couple hundred extra votes here and there.

Level two: Direct mass vote buying, which is similar to direct vote buying in cost, but not in logistics. On this level you are dealing with a vote agent, someone who can mobilise thousands of votes from his areas to vote for your candidate, and will ensure the delivery of such votes in your favour. The vote agent will utilise a number of methods, the most famous of which is the rotating ballot, where he will give the voter an already checked ballot (which he buys off the polling station workers) to place inside the ballot box instead of the ballot they give him inside, and in turn gives that unchecked ballot to the agent standing outside to confirm his vote. The agent checks the new ballot and gives it to the next “voter” in line, and starts the cycle all over. Many vote agents exist in every district; the best will not only be able to churn out the votes, but also manage different voter lines at the same time.

Level three: Polling station mass vote sale, a process in which you buy your votes directly from the polling station workers, which is more convenient and far less costly. This usually takes place at the final hours of the second day of voting, when the polling stations are mostly empty and supreme majority of voters have voted. At this point the workers go through their rolls, count the names of those who didn’t vote, and offer to sell their votes wholesale at 2000LE per 500 votes, and then fill the ballots and sign the names themselves. This is why many times people will go in to vote and find their names already checked in the rolls.

Level four: Bribing the ballot counters, who are usually government workers whose name and contact information one can obtain using an appropriate bribe. The unprofessional ballot counters will simply put any number that favours their candidate or unfavours his opponent regardless of the actual vote, counting that most likely there would not be a recount of that specific box. Professional ballot counters will provide the same results, by simply invalidating as many of the votes of their opponents as they can, which is as easy as making an extra check mark on their ballot. This way if there was ever a recount, their numbers will check out.

Level five: The judges level, which happens at the time of final vote tallying, wherein one of  the judges will go down to every ballot counter’s table and gets the number of votes every candidate received and writes it down on a piece of paper. What the ballot counter tells him and what he writes can be completely different, and given that they only announce the total votes at the end, they can change the final tally as they please. This level requires either having a direct relationship with the judges, but usually is reserved to the people in power, who will issue a direct order to the judges to bring out a specific result they wish.

Final level: The voter rolls level, which happens when the state wants to directly affect the results of the vote, and is almost undetectable. Given that producing the voter rolls is the responsibility of the paragon of integrity and transparency that is the Ministry of Interior, they are usually filled with thousands of duplicate/fake/dead names. And since the interior ministry is also the governmental body that issues state ID’s, they can issue thousands of fake ID’s with the names of those fictitious voters. Specific people are given those ID’s and voter-ink removing solution, and voila, thousands of fake votes, undetectable to the experienced observer, enter the ballot box as valid votes.

Illogical jumps in the amount of eligible voters, like the 12 million extra eligible voters that were suddenly added to the rolls between 2011 parliamentary elections and the 2012 presidential elections are usually a big hint, but careful inspection of the voter rolls provided to each candidate per district on a national level confirms it, given that they find thousands of duplicate names with the same voter ID in multiple polling station in multiple districts. Evidence of this has been found, and law suits have been filed, but no investigation has ever been made, since it would implicate the state itself, something that the state isn’t too keen on.

These are only a few general examples, and god knows there are hundreds of other methods to utilise, but the conclusion is the same. If political parties are keen on actually moving forward with the country, then our voting system has to be overhauled completely, by cleaning up the voter rolls, taking the voter roll and ID issuing powers away from the interior ministry, setting up an electoral committee that is not made up of the judiciary, but from the different parties in Egypt, and quite possibly set-up a different voting methodology all together. Otherwise, any election or referendum will be no different than any other election in Egypt’s history: state-influenced, illegitimate and fair only in the way it allows everyone to cheat.

About the author

Mahmoud Salem

Mahmoud Salem

Mahmoud Salem is a political activist, writer, and social media consultant. His writings could be found at www.sandmonkey.org and follow him @sandmonkey on Twitter

  • Ahmed Bata

    Thank you for this informative article. Why should the judges be kept out of the monitoring process? They are supposed to be apolitical.

  • Pingback: Our catastrophic voting system - TalkAfrika.com

  • callmeback

    Yeah it´s because of the voting system that you have lost any election LOL.
    And the revolution continuous too. LOL

  • Hani Denmark

    Living in Denmark, one of the oldest democracies in west Europe, I have voted tens of times, for the parliament, the commune, and the EU parliament.
    A voter is registered and enters a closed room to be totally alone to decide who to vote for from a long list of names and parties. There are rules of PR decided by the law, and rules to choose the observers.
    The voting system is unquestionable due to its logistics. Why shouldn’t we in Egypt adopt a similar system.
    This was one example. There are many cases of voting systems that ensures that fraud is out of the question.

  • Martin Hutchison

    Looks like the US Democrats are learning from Egypt, or was it the other way around?

  • RayMetcalfe

    The article below was written in an effort to persuade American voters, and more particularly, Alaskan American voters, that there is a fairer way to vote than the method used in much of America. In that article I used Egypt as an example of what can go wrong using a top two runoff system, a system recently adopted by the State of California. I thought your readers might be interested.

    By Ray Metcalfe,
    Anchorage Alaska USA
    907-344-4514 [email protected]

    Vote by Mail, Ranked Choice, Instant Runoff, Advantages: Excepting that
    ballots would be sent and returned through the U.S. mail, Ranked Choice,
    Instant Runoff effectively implements the same process the U.S. Senate uses in the selection of its leaders; it is used
    because it is the fairest, most inclusive, and democratic method Congress could devise.

    In example; if there are five candidates for the same seat, a paper
    secret ballot is circulated with all five names. If no candidate receives
    more than 50 %, the lowest vote getter is dropped and a new four candidate ballot is circulated, giving those who supported the candidate with the least support a second chance to influence the ultimate outcome. If no candidate receives over 50%, on the second ballot, the lowest vote getter is once again dropped and a three candidate ballot is circulated with the remaining three candidates. The process is continued until the candidate with the broadest possible support (50% plus 1 vote) emerges. –– In this way, the need for a primary is eliminated.

    In an Ranked Choice, Instant Runoff, the voter picks their candidates in
    order of preference. If no candidate receives more than 50% in the first
    computer count, the computer then recounts. For those voters who selected the lowest vote getter as their first preference,their first preference is stricken from their ballot and their second
    preference is counted as though it had been their first preference. This method of count and recount is carried out under the watchful eyes of interested parties until the candidate with the broadest possible support emerges. Paper ballots are retained and hand counted if necessary to settle any disputed computer count.

    Ranked Choice, Instant Runoff will cut the cost of holding an election in half by eliminating the need and expense of a primary election. Vote
    by Mail will reduce costs even further by eliminating the expense of
    Election Day polling stations. As it did in Washington, and Oregon, Vote
    by Mail will bring about a dramatic increase in voter participation, and thereby guide political control closer the center. The Ranked Choice, Instant Runoff effect will insure the election and representation by only those with the broadest segment of our political spectrum supporting them and thereby facilitate more bipartisan cooperation among elected officials.

    Alaska’s closed Republican primary will be eliminated. Right wing
    conservatives worked to close the Republican primary so they could be a
    relatively larger fish in a smaller pond. Wherever possible, they have
    succeeded in eliminating pro choice and/or moderate Republicans with
    any inclination to work with Democrats. In a state with more Republicans than Democrats, the closed primary nomination system simply works out to favor the election of right wing Tea Party candidates.

    Coupling Vote by Mail, with Ranked Choice, Instant Runoff, will make it
    impossible to purge the voter rolls of minorities and poor people through
    photo ID requirements.

    Adopting the ballot tracking and vote counting system used and perfected
    by the State’s of Washington, and Oregon, those vote counting issues raised by Diebold Election Systems, Inc., will become a footnote in Alaska’s history books.

    Anchorage Tea Party Candidate Don Smith would never have been elected to the Anchorage School Board under Ranked Choice, Instant Runoff. One of his two mainstream opponents would have won.

    The runoff of the top two vote getters in the Egyptian election turned
    into a disaster for Egypt. –– Following a primary election in which the three mainstream candidates were eliminated sharing 52% of the vote while extremists at opposite ends of the Egyptian political spectrum were nominated to run against each other with 24% of the vote each. The outcome of Egypt’s primary left it mathematically impossible for
    Egypt’s voters to elect a president with the genuine support of a majority of Egypt’s voters. Had Egypt had a Ranked Choice, Instant Runoff system of voting, it is highly probable that one of the three mainstream candidates would have come out on top. Egypt’s new democracy would have never elected a candidate from the Muslim Brotherhood had they selected their president using the Ranked Choice, Instant Runoff method of voting.

    Many democrats were in a snit over Democrat Harry Crawford’s primary run against Democrat incumbent Betty Davis. Under Ranked Choice, Instant Runoff, it wouldn’t have been an issue. Anyone voting for Crawford would likely have chosen Davis as their second choice. In either case, the voting public would decide which of the two would have had the best shot at beating their Republican opponent Anna Fairclough.

    Ballots mailed along with two pages of explanation for each issue in a
    Tabloid Sized Voter’s Guide would go a long ways toward better informing the voting public. Access to an inexpensive “Voter’s Tabloid” would have a leveling influence on the playing field between rich and poor, and between incumbents and non-incumbents. Today’s Voters Pamphlet is seldom taken to the polls for reference. With a Voter’s Tabloid next to an election ballot on the kitchen table, voters could familiarize themselves with candidates and issues they hadn’t heard of, they could pause to consult with friends, and they could make voting a family event.

  • Pingback: poplar table

  • Pingback: water damage restoration houston

  • Pingback: Dungeons and Dragons

  • Pingback: seo philadelphia

  • Pingback: marketing agency kent

  • Pingback: training babies to use toilets

  • Pingback: YouTube

  • Pingback: news

  • Pingback: remxgxncbxvemdfchnf

  • Pingback: dog bed

  • Pingback: search engine submission

  • Pingback: Click Here

  • Pingback: Water Heater Repair Denver

  • Pingback: recurring billing

  • Pingback: game


You might also like...

Farid Zahran

What are the forces that underpin Al-Sisi’s management of the country?

Read More →