The low voter turnout at the April 08th General Election has shown that the people’s faith in the electoral system has reached an all time low. And the allegations made by several defeated United Peoples’ Freedom Alliance (UPFA) candidates about preferential votes are doing further damage to the already shaky reputation of the Department of Elections.

Controversy surrounding the manipulation of preferential votes is nothing new to Sri Lanka but it is only in the last three elections that it has become one of the most popular topics for public discussion.

 In the Southern Provincial Council election, Nishantha Muthuhettigama claimed that he had been robbed of the preferential votes by members of his own party. In the presidential election, allegations of rigging were raised by the supporters of Gen. Sarath Fonseka and this time in general election many candidates who did not win, from Chandana Kathriarachchi to Geetha Kumarasinghe are making the same claim.

Manipulating preferential votes

But is it possible for someone to manipulate preferential votes? While the department officials claim its impossible, election monitors claim that the biggest problem with the counting of votes is that there is no transparency in the process. Counting centres are off limits not only to the public but also to some of the candidates.

“Changing or manipulating the preferential votes is theoretically impossible. According to protocol, each bundle of 50 ballot papers gets counted thrice by different agents who tabulate the number separately. But then again I am talking about an area that is not open to us. Election monitors are not allowed to be present at the counting centres and therefore, we can’t rule the possibility out,” said Campaign for Free and Fair Elections (CaFFE) spokesman Keerthi Tennakoon.

During each election, representatives of minor politicians of each party are chased away from counting centres by the big shots in a particular area. The police who are there to maintain order and prevent the entry of unauthorized personnel into the site allow this to happen --- fearing the retribution of winning candidates.

“The biggest problem is that the department of elections has not taken steps to make the counting process transparent. On election night the environment around counting centres always faces heaps of shortcomings,” Tennakoon said. “Only the representatives of the big shots of any party remain in counting centres after midnight. The mid level candidates and their supporters cannot remain in the centres because most of the time they are chased away from the counting centres and the police do not do anything to prevent this. So it is natural that there are rumours and suspicion about what happens after they are chased away from the counting centres. Sometimes when the police try to follow protocol they get into trouble. For example some police officers prevented Susantha Punchinilame from traveling to the counting centre by vehicle and now they are in trouble. There should be a way to look after police officers who carry out orders from vengeful politicians.”

The Department could have introduced a sense of transparency into the counting process by allowing election monitors into the counting centres. After the controversial presidential election, several monitoring bodies requested access from the commissioner --- who refused their request stating that there is no space in the counting centres. “The department could have done a lot to address this issue. They knew that there were a many rumours and controversies surrounding the January 26th election and that people are losing their faith in the electoral process. That’s why Peoples’ Action for Free and Fair Election (PAFFERAL) and Centre for Monitoring Election Violence (CMEV) wanted to be present at the counting centres during the General Election which followed. But the commissioner said that there is no space.
Now there are more than dozen candidates who are claiming that their preferential votes were robbed and given to others and no one can disprove this.”
PAFFERAL Executive Director Rohana Hettiarachchi agreed with his colleague stating that the breakdown of the rule of law has lead people to lose faith in all the institutions and mechanisms.

“Only the agents of the top candidates are there in counting centres and because of that other candidates view the results suspiciously. That’s why we saw agents of some candidates spending the night at various counting centres. The elections commissioner did not allow us to be at counting centres. Therefore, we cannot say this happened or this did not happen.

“The only scientific method that can either prove or disprove this is to, ask for a recount.
Yes the candidate who asks for a re-poll needs to pay an amount to the department of elections. But I don’t think that cash would be a problem for an Azath Sally or a Geetha Kumarathunga.

The only thing they can do is to ask for a re-poll, that’s the only way that they can prove that something has happened.”

THE OFFICIAL VERSION

Meanwhile Advisor to the elections commissioner Bandula Kulathunga claimed that there are clear and settled procedures guaranteeing that there is no chance of error or illegal manipulation in counting preferences. (See main story.)He added that although there maybe discrepencies in the final result and the first count in many cases, they have no significant bearing on the outcome.

“Sometimes the final result doesn’t tally with the first count. That’s due to human error and that’s why we have three rounds. Normally we start counting after midnight and the counting is done by officers who have been working from seven in the morning. So they are tired and there are small errors but never enough to change a result.”

He added that according to the law, department can recount the vote twice if requested by the candidates. “According to the law the votes can be recounted twice and we have already done so in some cases. Once at the request of former Foreign Minister Rohitha Bogollagama but as you know the recount didn’t make any difference to him. But if someone still seriously thinks that there have been malpractices and their preferential votes have gone to someone else, they can go to courts and get a court decision to get a recount.”

In 2006, there was a move by the department to introduce electronic voting. The commissioner of elections contacted an Indian voting machine manufacturer, Bharat Electronics Limited, Bangalore --- and got them to put on a demonstration at the elections department.

“Electronic Voting Machines (EVM) is being used in Indian General and State Elections from 1999 and since 2002 all voting is done via these machines. An EVM has two units, the control unit and the balloting unit which are connected by a five-meter cable. The control unit is with the presiding officer and the balloting unit is placed inside the voting compartment. Instead of issuing a ballot paper, the officer in-charge of the control unit will press the ballot button. This will enable the voter to cast his vote by pressing the blue button on the balloting unit against the candidate and symbol of his choice. The EVMs reduce the time spent in both casting a vote and declaring the results compared to the old paper ballot system. EVMs are powered by an ordinary 6 volt alkaline battery which enables their use throughout the country without interruptions because several parts of India do not have power supply,” Kulathunga said.

Select committee

Although the select committee on Electoral Reforms then headed by Dinesh Gunawardane agreed to implement this new method the committee did not make the necessary legal changes since the law only recognizes the ballot paper. “If we are to use this machine the law needs to change. But I don’t think that the government was interested enough in pushing it through.”
But PAFFERAL Executive Director claimed that a new voting method is the last thing on his mind, adding that we have bigger and more urgent issues to address first.

“If the idea is to rebuild the faith in elections, I think there are easy methods. For example if the commissioner allowed us to be present at counting centres there would have been no room for these allegations. So before changing the laws and investing on new hardware, we should focus on doing the basics right and implement the existing laws.”

(Photo - this is how Mahindananda Aluthgamage arrive and then left Nawalapitiya just after the Polling in April  20th.  These People were seen at the Kandy counting center soon after these photos were taken.)