Comelec Responds to Election Overvotes and Software Questions
The Commission on Elections (Comelec) has recently addressed multiple concerns regarding the recent elections, particularly focusing on the issue of overvoting and discrepancies with voting receipts. Central to these discussions is the claim of “17 million overvotes,” which has sparked debate among voters and observers alike.
According to sources familiar with the matter, the claim of 17 million overvotes seems statistically unlikely given the total voter turnout of 68 million. If this number were accurate, it would imply that roughly one in three voters committed overvoting in a single position, a scenario considered improbable based on past election data from 2010 to 2022.
Understanding the Overvotes Figure
Officials clarified that the 17 million figure actually represents the total number of overvotes recorded across all ballots, not the number of voters who overvoted. When this number is divided by the 12 positions available on the ballot, it equates to about 1.4 million overvotes. This figure falls within the normal range of 1.5 to 2.5 percent overvotes seen in previous elections, indicating that the situation is not as alarming as initially claimed.
Addressing Receipt Mismatches and Ballot Concerns
Complaints also arose regarding mismatches between voters’ receipts and the candidates they voted for, as well as allegations of pre-shaded ballots. Comelec explained that voters who noticed discrepancies were encouraged to file formal complaints. This process allowed electoral boards to rescan receipts after the elections to verify results.
While the commission has not conclusively confirmed whether mismatches persisted after rescanning, electoral boards were trained to instruct voters to report if their ballots appeared pre-marked or shaded before voting. This protocol aimed to prevent any confusion or errors during the process.
Clarifying Software Versions Used During Elections
Another concern involved the difference in software versions used before and during the election. The commission assured the public that the software for automated counting machines remained essentially the same. The software initially identified as version 3.4 during the Local Source Code Review was audited by a third-party and, after passing verification, was renamed version 3.5. This change reflects a procedural update rather than a functional difference.
Importance of Pre-Election Participation
These clarifications followed a forum held by various civic groups that raised “alarming concerns” about the elections. Sources indicate that if these groups had participated in the pre-election activities—similar to political parties and media organizations—they could have understood the technical details better and avoided making unsupported claims against the electoral body.
For more news and updates on election overvoting, visit Filipinokami.com.