DEAR Mr. President:
It could just be a matter of semantics, but as far as I know, an Automated Counting Machine (ACM) is not the same as an Automated Voting Machine (AVM).
And as far as I can recall, the law requires the use of an AVM, and not an ACM.
This is already water under the bridge now, because the Commission on Elections (Comelec) has already purchased the ACMs, and there is no point anymore in making an issue out of it.
However, I am writing about it now in the hope that in the future, when Comelec buys the next batch of machines, they will do it right already.
The difference between an ACM and an AVM is simple. One is for counting; one is for direct voting. In some countries, AVMs are also called Direct Recording Machines (DRM).
Both AVMs and DRMs are acceptable, but the latter is more acceptable as a technical term. The reason why DRM is more acceptable is that it “calls a spade a spade” meaning that it describes the act of recording directly into a machine.
An ACM, however, does not record directly into a machine. An ACM enables a voter to cast her or her vote into an Optical Mark Reader (OMR). The OMR is the device that captures the data, but strictly speaking, the OMR does not really “count” the votes.
Just to be clear, it is the “consolidator” that eventually counts the votes.
Again Mr. President, the law requires the “digitalization” of the voting process, but for as long as paper forms are used, the digitalization is only partial, and in a manner of speaking, it could still be considered as “manual” and not as “electronic”.
I am saying that because the ballot that will be used is still a paper form. As a matter of fact, the physical appearance of the ballot is like a lotto bet slip, and that is so because the lotto bet slip is also an OMR paper form.
Mr. President, I do realize that there is nothing perfect when it comes to automation. However, I also believe that if we want to improve the provision of good governance in our country, we must do everything right as much as possible.
What that means is that if we are serious about going paperless, we must do everything that we can, to do away with paper forms. And that is the reason why I say that in the future, in the next procurement of voting machines, we should already shift to DRMs, so that we are fully compliant to the letter of the law.
After spending so much for the old Precinct Count Optical Scan (PCOS) machines and ACMs, it is such a waste that Comelec is just storing them in warehouses somewhere, with no productive use at all. I suggest, Mr. President, that the government should use these old machines to conduct surveys and to conduct school exams.
Right now, I do not know yet which government agency should be the principal user of these machines. I do know Sir, that these could be used for any purpose that requires the use of OMR technology./PN
