New Delhi: Electronic Voting Machines (EVM) are prone to ‘mass
hacking’ and hence in order to “save democracy,” general elections
should be postponed by few weeks and voting should be held through
printed ballot papers. These are the demands raised by some civil
society groups.
In a press conference held on Saturday at the ANHAD office in the
capital and attended by Professor Hemant Shah, Gautam Thakkar, President
of Gujarat Unit of PUCL and Mahesh Pandya of the Gujarat Social Watch,
besides Shabnam Hashmi, they demanded that in the light of present
revelation by the media that EVM machine was prone to hacking, it is
important that some mechanism is put in place to check fraud.
Gautam Thakkar expressed his doubts that after the Assam incident,
where an EVM was found to be voting in favour of BJP, no matter which
button you clicked, it is possible that the general elections will not
be fought in a fair manner.
Prof Shah gave examples from local and Assembly elections in Gujarat
where there were allegations of fraud and hacking of the EVM.
A short film on the possible ways of hacking the EVM was also shown in the press conference.
Shabnam Hashmi of ANHAD argued that the election is not just about
choosing a government, but it is about saving the democracy of the
country. In response to a question that if she is alleging some sort of
collusion between the BJP and the Election Commission, she added that
the EC does not function on its own but borrows officials from the
district level, and one cannot deny that there are infiltrations by some
right wing forces.
There are three categories of people, who have an opinion on the issue of Electronic Voting Machine (EVM):
1. Those who believe that EVM can be manipulated and have been
manipulators in India (Example Individuals, those candidates who have
lost elections, a few political organizations).
2. Those who outrightly reject such a possibility (Election Commission and experts involved in designing the system).
3. Those who believe EVMs can be manipulated but large-scale
manipulation is not a practical proposition. The argument boils down to
security in 'Numbers' (majority). This segment of society is the largest
in number.
“If the apprehension of 1 and 3 are correct then Indian democracy is
in danger. If the EVMs are susceptible to manipulation, then it is
likely that these will be manipulated,” the joint press statement said.
Let us scan the arguments propounded by each segment of society:
Category one:
Technical arguments
Manipulations difficult to detect and correct
The technical reality is that every Electronic machine can be
manipulated. All electronic machines are designed by humans, for
manipulation. The real issue is who can manipulate a machine and who
cannot. There cannot be a machine without an input and an output window,
therefore, there is always a possibility of manipulating a chip or a
microprocessor or a super computer.
In this age of electronics, when human beings can manipulate
instruments sent to moon or mars, any machine and that too,
architecturally as simple as EVM, can easily be manipulated sitting on
earth. It is child's play to design a cheap instrument, or program a
laptop or even a cell phone, which can write and re-write on any chip
either through direct connection or through remote operation.
There are many ways in which EVMs can be manipulated. A few of these
have been explained in detail on Internet. These are easy to grasp and
execute.
Individuals have actually demonstrated that by programming the EEPROM
(the main chip known as 'electrically erasable programmable read only
memory' fitted in the machine) the results of election could be pre-set
and irrespective of how people vote the final results that the EVM shows
are preprogramed. Depending upon the method these instructions could be
given to EVMs at various points of time during the electoral process.
Remote control devices could be designed to manipulate EVMs, which will bypass all detection by electoral staff.
Easy to detect and correct
Simplest of all methods is to put a small piece of paper between the
push button, designated for a specific candidate, and stop it from
making electrical contact.
Polling booth officers cast vote in favour of a specific candidate,
just after releasing a vote, and before the illiterate voter is asked to
press the button.
Experiential arguments
Most developed countries have rejected EVMs. The use of similar
paperless DREs has been discontinued in California, Florida, Ireland,
the Netherlands, and Germany.
There have been many complaints that the results have been
manipulated. Candidates and their supporters have refused to believe the
results, (examples, recent UP and Gujarat elections).
Unbelievably, high voting percentage in constituencies and states.
This phenomenon has been observed in the recent past. (UP and Gujarat,
especially tribal areas).
Voters and observers have complained that people with laptops have entered the polling booth area (Gujarat elections).
Entire staff and polling agents are involved in subverting the election results.
Category two
Technical Argument
Technically the EVM machines used in India are foolproof and
hardwired. All concerns have been taken into account while designing it.
The third-generation EVM machine design takes all concerns into
account.
A large number of impartial government employees and representatives
of political parties are involved in checking the EVMs before these are
sealed for operation and voting begins.
Extensive training is given to polling booth officers by staff
members of Election Commission. Because of the involvement of large
number of staff members and poling agents large-scale rigging is not
possible, without detection.
Experiential Argument
Only those who have lost elections have complaints about EVMs. (Could
anyone ever think of a winner lodging a complaint? In the entire debate
this is the most stupid argument.)
If it were so easy to manipulate machines then all parties or for
that matter, individual candidates would have manipulated these in their
favour.
If election results are being manipulated then the party in power will never lose elections.
Category Three
Most people that constitute this category have weak technical
background and believe in experiential arguments put forward by the
second category.
Additionally, they vehemently argue about the practical impossibility
of a large-scale operation that would be required to manipulate EVMs to
make a substantial difference in the final election results at state or
national level.
Political pundits who experienced booth-capturing of the bygone era
have not come out of that mind-set, and think that even in this era
manipulation is not possible without large crowd of hooligans capturing
the booth.
Claims of secure Indian EVMs have been challenged
Many experts, both national and international, have experimented with
Indian EVMs and have shown that, even the third generation machines are
not as secured as these are made out to be. Simple methods of
manipulation have been suggested. For details see the attached article.
Security in number is the strongest argument
Let us, without going into technical details, for example, assume
that the EVM machines could be manipulated by using a simple device such
as laptop, electronic note book or a cellphone. It is argued that the
number of people required to be bought (bribed, influenced) from within
election commission's network would be very large. Even if we suppose
that the EVM could be manipulated from a remotely placed device, and
bypass the security network of EC, it will require enormous number of
trained-manpower to change the national results. The assumption here is
that all EVMs in a constituency and in turn in all constituencies, are
to be manipulated.
This surely, is not the case. Gone are the days when large manpower
was required to capture just one booth and put every one’s life in
danger.
Consider the following scenario:
Agency A is given the task of manipulating the final
national-election-results in favour of a party X. Let us say party Y and
Z are the nearest rivals of X. It is obvious that Y and Z will change
from constituency to constituency. Following are the steps that 'A'
needs to take.
Step 1. Collect all the data of previous constituency wise voting
pattern. Some databases give booth wise voting percentage distribution
for each candidate. Mark the constituencies where Y and Z have won. Or X
has lost.
Step 2. Administer a national sample survey to find out what changes
have taken place in the last six years. This should be done a few months
before the elections. The survey should generate booth level or EVM
level data.
Step 3. Identify the booths where X is likely to lose for sure (this
constitutes the first set of booths) and also identify the booths where X
and its rivals (Y and Z) are going to get almost same number of votes
(second set of booths). Keep the second set of booths for statistical
analysis only if the first set of booths does not give desired results
in step 4. Leave all those constituencies where X is going to win. These
are of no interest.
Step 4. Select constituencies where Y or Z are going to defeat X with
large margins, leave all those booths where X is going to get more
votes compared to Y or Z.
Step 5. Identify those booths in these constituencies where Y or Z are going to get large numbers votes in their favour.
Step 6. Once this database is constructed, by applying statistical
techniques, a minimum number of EVMs that need manipulation could be
computed. Iterations which marginally change the number of votes in each
EVM where X is likely to lose could give us the minimum number of EVMs
that will make a significant difference at national level. If changing
the number of votes in this set of EVM (booths) does not give desired
results add a few booths from the second set where the fight is
neck-to-neck. Change the number of votes in favour of X. Repeat the
iteration to achieve desired results.
Step 7. Identify the minimum number EVMs to be manipulated (or
Booths) on paper. Now agency 'A' is ready to properly identify EVMs to
be manipulated and voting figures to be fed in each of these EVMs.
Step 8. In order to be doubly sure, repeat the survey only in those areas where voters are going to vote in favour of Y and Z.
Step 9. If the exercise is done thoroughly and Y or Z are not likely
to sweep the elections or are not riding a huge popularity wave, this
number will not be more than 1-2% of all booths or EVMs. Precise number
of vote that are to be stolen from Y and/or Z and shifted to the account
of X could be calculated.
Step 10. 'A' must procure sufficient number of electronic devices for
manipulating results in a given minimum number of EVMs. Though it is
difficult to detect this meticulously worked out theft of votes, if the
number of persons involved in the operation increases the risk of
detection will increase. The risk of detection is directly proportional
to the number of EVMs to be manipulated.
Step 11. 'A' should not attempt to rig all EVMs.
Step 12. 'A' should induct local youth from areas where results are to be manipulated.
Step 13. The youth should be trained in handling the remote machines.
Step 14. The youth trained may not be told the ultimate objective of
the exercise. They may be given a computer or an electronic tablet or a
cellphone and be instructed to interview voters or report from the
polling booth for ten or fifteen minutes. Ensure that they are at the
right place at the right time. The device may be pre-programmed to send
signals to designated EVMs while the recruit is in the vicinity of the
poling booth.
Step 15. If one machine and one person could cover more than one
booth, 'A' must try to achieve that for arriving at minimum number of
persons to be involved in the operation.
Step 16. Conduct a mock poll through a reputed agency. The poll
should give ranges of results, which should include the final expected
manipulated results. Feed it to media repeatedly. Create as much
confusion as possible.
Step 17. Purchase channel's time, newspaper's space and
correspondents to predict results that are predetermined (or in other
words, have been worked out on paper).
The entire operation will cost a couple of hundred crores rupees in
Indian conditions. If the plan, described above, can be operationalized,
the Indian democracy is doomed.
Who would be interested in manipulation?
1. All the candidates fighting the election (but it may not be
economically viable for 'A' to undertake such an exercise for a single
candidate)
2. All political parties (the parties may not have expertise to run
the entire exercise on their own, but may engage agency 'A')
3. International and National Advertising agencies that specialize
in advertising for political parties. (They are fit for undertaking such
jobs for any other group, be it a political party or a country, this
also fits in their business plan and will give extra credibility to
their successful advertising campaign).
4. Other countries. There is no reason to believe that other
countries, developed or developing, friendly or unfriendly, will not be
interested in manipulating results of Indian elections. CIA has been
accused of manipulating governments and democracies all over the world
by using money and firepower. It is their mandate to look after the
interest of USA in other countries. They have been accused of many
covert operations in India as well. If they can decide the fate of
Indian democracy, they surely will. Why China would be not interested in
deciding which party is in power in India.
The objective of this operation should not be to control all EVMs,
but to control the final results or in other words Indian Democracy. If
one party keeps winning elections everywhere the entire operation will
be jeopardized. Manipulate results only where it is crucial.
Way forward:
A committee of experts must be constituted by the parliament. This
committee must identify, may be, 20 groups of IT and electronic experts
from IITs, DRDO, BARC, TIFR, ISRO, CSIR, etc. These groups should be
given a one line mandate-change the results in EVM during actual poling
without getting detected-each group should be provided with sufficient
funds and support system that they ask for. The extent of funds cannot
be an issue when Indian democracy is at stake, If no group is able to
accomplish the mandate then we are safe, but if even one of them is able
to manipulate just one EVM without detection we should abandon EVMs and
revert back to paper ballots as many countries have done.
Source: Two Circles.net
