On some occasions I have been asked why I write "against" automated electoral processes, given my background in the area of information technology. And the answer I always give is precisely because I know what technology can do to violate people's human rights, especially the right to elect and be elected.
Well, I am not against the fact that information technology is a tool to speed up processes, especially electoral processes, but that it has become a substitute for what human beings can verify with their own senses. I am referring specifically to voting.
If you go to an election to cast your vote in a black box, called "electronic ballot box", which does not provide you with any voucher that can be verified by yourself when cast, giving you reliable proof of your selection, and that can be later audited by flesh and blood witnesses of all parties, it is between you and that black box what was the final selection of your vote. In this way, "the system" could electronically change your will in any phase of the automated process, either in the machine itself or "electronic ballot box", or in the computers of the totalization center, or worse, in any intermediate place hidden in the networks between the black voting box and the totalization center. And neither you nor anyone else will be able to do anything to deny or affirm that result.
Some will say that there are auditing systems in all the phases of the automated process, but there are also technical ways to evade them, so that the evidence of any later modification of the data and the systems disappears without leaving any trace. It is for this reason that there must be a physical proof that the voter has verified with his senses and delivers with his selection to a deposit or ballot box, so that it can be counted at the end of the election process at the voting table. That is like leaving a store without a physical receipt or invoice of your purchase, and with which you can return to claim.
In this way we could make a scrutiny, which can only be done by people, of all the receipts and compare them with the results of the so-called "electronic ballot box". This would be the so-called Manual Scrutiny, as opposed to the Automated Scrutiny, which is the one performed by a machine without receipts. This was one of the main reasons for the historical sentence of the Constitutional Court of Germany that annulled the electronic voting in that country (see in Spanish German Constitutional Court, Judgment 2 BVC 3/07 - 2 BVC 4/07 - Unconstitutionality of the E-Vote, in https://tinyurl.com/2st6t7mc).
If this Manual Scrutiny had been done in ALL the polling stations, regardless of the number of them, in all the elections since 1998, it would have spared Venezuelans the political, economic and social debacle that now afflicts us. Had we had the possibility of doing the same Manual Scrutiny in all the polling stations in Brazil, I am sure that the result would have been very different from the one announced.
Despite the absence of voting receipts, mathematical methodologies such as those described in my previous note are being applied to detect anomalies in the electoral process, such as the Newcomb-Benford test on large datasets, which allow the detection of inconsistencies that should be investigated in depth (see Results in Brazil: the new incursion of electronic voting, in https://ticsddhh.blogspot.com/2022/11/resultados-en-brasil-la-nueva-incursion.html).
In addition to this, other studies are coming to light that detected anomalies in the recent electoral process in Brazil, by analyzing the statistical inconsistencies of the results produced by the "electronic ballot boxes", which reveals, in our opinion, a deliberate intention to manipulate the vote.
The report on Brazil's elections presented by a group calling itself "Brazil Was Stolen" based on the direct study of data on the results presented from the "electronic ballot boxes", and which fundamentally focuses on the totals emitted by the models of the machines used in the two rounds of the Brazil 2022 elections, is configured as evidence of a manipulation like that which occurred in all Venezuelan elections since 2004 (see in Spanish These are the electoral "anomalies" that prompted the protests in Brazil, in https://panampost.com/oriana-rivas/2022/11/04/anomalias-en-las-elecciones-brasil/).
According to this study, based on the open results published by the Brazilian Electoral Court (TSE), the machines prior to the 2020 models (2009, 2010, 2011, 2013 and 2015), which were located in populations with 50,000 or fewer voters, present differences in the results of the election for president of Brazil, according to the model of the ballot boxes, in the same region, with the same population and demographic and geographic characteristics. At least two source codes were detected in the machines. The study indicates that the pre-2020 "electronic ballot boxes" were not audited (see full video of the presentation to the world in Spanish and Portuguese by Brazil Was Stolen group spokesman Fernando Cerimedo, in https://tinyurl.com/29nvh285).
The PanamPost article highlights that: "1) In cities with less than 50,000 voters, the machines dating from 2020 show a difference of 10 points between both candidates (44.97% in favor of Bolsonaro vs. 55.03% for Lula da Silva). In comparison, in the unaudited machines (pre-2020) there is a 15-point difference (42.68 % vs. 57.32 %); 2) In the northeast region, the area with the "main difference", the 2020 machines show 37.08 % in favor of Bolsonaro vs. 62.92 % for Lula da Silva. In the machines of previous years and not audited, Bolsonaro only obtained 25.39 % vs. 74.61 % for Lula. That is, 11.7 points of difference in the same region between audited and non-audited machines; 3) Also in the Northeast region, excluding the capitals of these states, the same behavior was recorded, but with 8.7 percentage points of difference".
The "Brazil Was Stolen" Report highlights: "In the case of the cities with less than 50,000 voters, you can see the dispersion of the vote much more normal in the machines that are from 2020, with a difference of 10 points in favor of Lula, in the cities with less than 50,000 voters. But in the machines that were not audited, there is a difference of 15 points. I come back to the same thing, cities of 50,000 people, small cities cannot have such a difference. They enter a voting center with relatives, friends, neighbors, there are 7 machines or 5 machines of the old model and 3 or 4 machines of the 2020 model, and the behavior of the popular decision of the vote is different. That variable is not possible..." (see video of the report, min 40:20). This report is consistent with the deviations produced by the studies that applied the Newcomb-Benford mathematical methodology, especially in the northeast of Brazil.
However, the audit report ends with the following: "What you saw is not a determination that there is fraud, nor a decision. This is information, which undoubtedly casts doubt on last Sunday's result, where a machine became a decision variable. Nowhere in the world does it exist that a machine determines the will of the people. It does not exist. There is no possibility that you go to vote and vote in a machine if the machine is not manipulated. Lula may not know about this, his campaign may not know about this, and it may be a mistake of the voting models, but you deserve to know the truth in Brazil. The region and the world deserve to know whether Lula is a legitimate president or not. If the popular will, the main source of democracy, really is such. We have to know and we have to know the truth..." (see video of the report, min 1:14:08).
This naive assertion by these qualified technicians of the "Brazil Was Stolen" group, excellent in mathematics and statistics, but very deficient in politics, indicating that "it is not a determination that there is fraud", is impossible to sustain. There is no way that this set of machines could have been placed in the right cities and centers at random. Likewise, there is no way that the Newcomb-Benford test would yield the results it does without deliberate manipulation of the numbers, as in the Enron case. Ignorance of the allegations of technical fraud made in Venezuela by stating that "Nowhere in the world does it exist that a machine determines the will of the people", unfortunately did not help to foresee the consequences of the use of an automated system without guarantees.
This report confirms the chronic existence of a massive fraud announced in the Brazilian elections in both rounds, and only for not having a system capable of guaranteeing a Manual Scrutiny. And the only one responsible for this fraud is the ex-convict Lula Da Silva, who is definitely not legitimate for having stolen an election, as the Castro-Chavist-Madurist regime has done since 2004 in Venezuela.
We hope that the legitimate government of President Jair Bolsonaro will mark a historic milestone by ignoring this fraudulent triumph carried out through electronic mechanisms, and will promote as soon as possible a thorough reform of the electoral system in Brazil. The disregard of the automated systems without the due guarantee of transparency by a country like Brazil, would be the first step towards the rescue of the rest of the electoral systems in Latin America. Venezuelans will be grateful.
Caracas, November 8, 2022
Blog: https://ticsddhh.blogspot.com/
Email: luismanuel.aguana@gmail.com
Twitter:@laguana
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario