The Enduring Controversy over Electronic Voting Machines in India

EVM

The controversy surrounding Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) in India refuses to dissipate, continuing to spark heated debates and allegations across political spectrums. The issue regained prominence when the Congress party attributed its humiliating defeat in the Maharashtra assembly elections to alleged vote tampering via EVMs. This defeat, at the hands of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and its allies, reignited scepticism about the reliability of EVMs and the integrity of India’s electoral process.

Shiv Sena (Uddhav Balasaheb Thackeray) MP Sanjay Raut, an ally of the Congress, has also expressed doubts over the election results, blaming the EVMs for the Maha Vikas Aghadi’s loss. In the Maharashtra assembly elections, the BJP-led Mahayuti coalition secured a landslide victory, winning 230 out of 288 seats, effectively routing the Opposition. The scale of the defeat has left Opposition leaders questioning the credibility of the voting system.

This week, the Supreme Court rejected a petition filed by evangelist K A Paul, who sought a return to paper ballots, citing concerns over the transparency of EVMs. During the hearing, Justice Vikram Nath’s oral observation summed up a sentiment often expressed in political circles: “EVMs are fine if you win and tampered if you lose.”

Interestingly, the scepticism surrounding EVMs is not new. The BJP itself questioned the reliability of EVMs following its unexpected defeat in the 2004 general elections, while the Congress raised similar concerns in 2014. The persistence of this controversy underscores a deep-seated distrust among political parties, which is amplified by the lack of transparency in the EVM process.

Lack of Transparency Fuels Distrust

One of the primary reasons the EVM controversy refuses to die down is the lack of transparency in the entire process. The Election Commission of India (ECI) and the judiciary, tasked with upholding electoral integrity, have not provided sufficient technical details about the ‘junctions’ within the EVM system. This opacity leaves room for speculation and mistrust.

Critics argue that the voting process, particularly the transmission and counting of votes, lacks clarity and consistency. For instance, there have been instances where vote counts appeared to change after polling ended. Such occurrences, coupled with inconsistent explanations from the ECI, have fuelled allegations of manipulation. If an electronic device is sealed and closed, it should be impossible to alter the vote count. Yet, discrepancies in vote percentages and numbers have raised eyebrows.

The Opposition’s concerns gained traction during the Haryana and Maharashtra assembly elections when allegations surfaced that the vote percentages increased post-polling. Observers pointed out that earlier elections focused on counting the absolute number of votes cast, whereas now, the emphasis on percentage figures introduces potential errors and obfuscation.

Human Errors and Lack of SOPs

A significant contributor to these discrepancies is the absence of standardized operating procedures (SOPs) for calculating and reporting voter turnout percentages. Consider a hypothetical polling booth ‘A’ with 1,200 registered voters. If 340 voters cast their ballots by 11 am, the voting percentage should be calculated as 28.33%. However, if a polling officer incorrectly bases the calculation on 1,000 voters instead of 1,200, the reported percentage would erroneously rise to 34%.

Such errors can cumulatively distort the reported voter turnout across multiple polling booths. For instance, if every polling officer in a constituency makes similar rounding errors, thousands of phantom votes could appear in the final tally. These inaccuracies highlight the need for stringent SOPs to ensure consistency and accuracy in reporting voter data.

Data Integrity and the Role of EVMs

EVMs are designed to record votes as data, providing a numerical count without calculating percentages. However, the conversion of raw vote data into percentage terms introduces unnecessary complexity and potential errors. The basic principle of data science dictates that data should be captured at its source in its original form. Applying this principle to elections would mean relying solely on the vote counts provided by EVMs, without additional transformations.

The 2017 Hackathon Challenge

In 2017, the ECI organized a hackathon challenge, inviting political parties to attempt hacking the EVMs. While no participants successfully demonstrated vulnerabilities, critics argue that the challenge was flawed. Firstly, participation was restricted to political parties, excluding independent experts and concerned citizens. Secondly, the conditions of the challenge were restrictive. Participants were not allowed to physically examine or dismantle the machines, and the time allotted was limited to seven minutes per machine.

These constraints undermined the credibility of the hackathon as a definitive test of EVM security. Critics likened it to a car manufacturer allowing a test drive but prohibiting customers from testing certain features. To truly assess the integrity of EVMs, the testing process must be comprehensive, transparent, and inclusive.

Persistent Questions and the Path Forward

Despite assurances from the ECI, doubts about EVMs persist. Many believe that while EVMs may not be “hacked” in the traditional sense, they could still be manipulated. The lack of an independent audit trail exacerbates these concerns. For example, implementing a rolling checksum—an alphanumeric string generated by a mathematical formula based on vote data—could enhance transparency and ensure data integrity at every stage of the voting process.

The Supreme Court’s Stance

The Supreme Court has observed that political parties tend to question the credibility of EVMs only when they lose elections. However, critics argue that dismissing concerns outright is not the solution. The judiciary, as the ultimate guardian of democratic processes, must provide a platform for addressing valid questions about electoral transparency. Denying citizens a fair hearing undermines public trust in the electoral system.

Returning to Paper Ballots: A Step Backward?

Some have called for a return to paper ballots, citing the transparency and simplicity of manual voting. However, this approach has significant drawbacks. Paper ballots are vulnerable to tampering, ballot stuffing, and logistical challenges. Moreover, reverting to out-dated methods would be a regressive step in an era of digital advancements.

Instead, the focus should be on improving the existing EVM system. By addressing technical and procedural shortcomings, the ECI can enhance public confidence in electronic voting. Implementing measures such as checksum verification, real-time data audits, and robust SOPs can ensure the integrity and transparency of the electoral process.

Allegations of Battery Tampering

Another intriguing allegation is that EVM battery levels are manipulated during counting. Actor Swara Bhasker’s claim that BJP wins correspond to EVMs showing 99% battery levels has added a new dimension to the debate. While this argument lacks technical merit, it reflects the broader mistrust surrounding EVMs. Addressing these concerns requires clear communication and evidence-based responses from the ECI.


Building Trust Through Transparency

The ongoing controversy over EVMs highlights a fundamental issue: the need for trust in democratic institutions. Transparency is the cornerstone of this trust. By making EVMs and their processes more accessible to public scrutiny, the ECI can dispel doubts and reinforce the legitimacy of India’s elections.

Ultimately, the solution lies in embracing innovation while maintaining accountability. Just as a malfunctioning car is repaired rather than abandoned, the EVM system must be refined to meet the highest standards of reliability and transparency. Only then can India’s electoral process live up to its democratic ideals and quell the persistent doubts surrounding electronic voting.

Mohd Ziyauallah Khan is a freelance content writer & editor based in Nagpur. He is also an activist and social entrepreneur, co-founder of the group TruthScape, a team of digital activists fighting disinformation on social media.

Support Countercurrents

Countercurrents is answerable only to our readers. Support honest journalism because we have no PLANET B.
Become a Patron at Patreon

Join Our Newsletter

GET COUNTERCURRENTS DAILY NEWSLETTER STRAIGHT TO YOUR INBOX

Join our WhatsApp and Telegram Channels

Get CounterCurrents updates on our WhatsApp and Telegram Channels

Related Posts

One should hail the initiative taken by villagers of Markadwadi in Malshiras Assembly Constituency in Maharashtra to conduct a mock poll using simple ballot boxes to test the EVM count, not suppress it

ToShri Rajiv KumarChief Election Commissioner Shri Gyanesh KumarElection Commissioner Dr Sukhbir Singh Sandhu Election Commissioner Dear Dr Sukhbir Singh Sandhu, S/Shri Gyanesh Kumar/ Rajiv Kumar, I refer to a news report (https://theprint.in/politics/only-want-to-clear-doubts-say-markadwadi-residents-as-admin-stops-mock-poll-in-maharashtra-village/2385542/) that "villagers in Markadwadi (a village in Malshiras Assembly Constituency…

Join Our Newsletter


Annual Subscription

Join Countercurrents Annual Fund Raising Campaign and help us

Latest News