A lot has been said about the Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) used in India, most recently by those who lost in the recent Assemble elections. While it is the finally the duty of the Election Commission of India (ECI) to dispel these rumours relating to EVMs being manipulated or ‘hacked’, let us take a look at whether they can be taken seriously or not.
Why EVMs in the first place?
The core advantage of EVMs over the traditional ballot paper system is portability, reduced costs and faster counting. In simple terms, the ECI no longer has to maintain a printing press to print the ballot papers, transport them to the polling booths and then carry the sealed ballot boxes to the counting centre, where they are to be counted. This is the exact same reason why transport bodies have moved from issuing punched tickets to printing them using a machine.
In the case of transport, under the earlier system, tickets of different denominations had to be printed, carried across several districts, and after being issued, the conductor would have to manually count the number of tickets sold and enter them on to a trip sheet. In the case of elections, the same applies, except instead of accounting for number of tickets sold, the number of votes per party has to be counted. This gives rise to two possible issues: 1. Human error, where the counting agent might accidentally mark a vote against the wrong party. 2. Malicious intent, where a counting agent either paid by a party or candidate or sympathetic towards a party might mark a vote against the wrong party. The sole purpose of EVMs is to make life easier for those involved in conducting the election process, thus making it cheaper and faster for the ECI.
Introducing the Electronic Voting Machine
Data from the ECI website on the functioning of EVMs answers the basic questions. The EVMs that India uses are jointly manufactured by Bengaluru-based Bharat Electronics Limited (BEL) and Hyderabad-based Electronics Corporation of India Limited (ECIL). A patent was issued to Gadde Raja Koteswara Rao of ECIL in 2001 for the invention.
The basic design of the EVM is simple. It operates using a six volt alkaline battery making it operable in places where there is no power. It can record 3,840 votes, far greater than the maximum number of electors at a polling station which is normally 1,500. A single EVM can support up to 16 candidates and a total of four such EVMs can be connected to each other to support a maximum of 64 candidates per constituency.
The EVM consists of two separate units, A Balloting Unit (BU) and a Control Unit (CU) that are connected by a five metre-long cable. Once a voter casts his/her vote using the BU, it is stored in the CU, thus ensuring that even if there is a malfunction, the BU can be replaced with a new one. An electoral officer covering 10 polling stations carries spare EVMs in such a scenario. The CU’s main purpose is to turn on the BU so that a voter has cast his/her vote. Once the vote has been cast, it is automatically deactivated till the next voter is verified against the electoral rolls and the officer-in-charge activates it again.
Can EVMs be hacked?
Now, the main point. No, an EVM cannot be hacked, or manipulated the way most of the losing politicians have claimed. For any device to be hacked, there has to be a connection between the hacker’s device and the device to be hacked. In the case of EVMs, the only connection is the cable connecting the BU and the CU, nothing else. There is no connection between the CU and the outside world as well, till it enters the counting centre. The BBC report from 2010 claiming that an American scientist ‘hacked’ into an EVM clearly states that the ‘scientists’ changed the components of the device and then manipulated it. While the report itself manipulated facts, it is clear that the device that was ‘hacked’ was not a standard ECIL or BEL developed EVM used by the ECI.
So how can we say the EVMs are secure?
The answer is simple. The only way an EVM can be tampered with is by physically opening it up and reprogramming it.
Further, the allegation made against them is: pressing any button would transfer all the votes to one candidate. The order of the candidates is randomly selected after the last date of filing and withdrawing nominations. Further, the EVMs are checked if they are working fine, in the presence of the candidate or their representatives and only after they are satisfied, they are sealed. This makes them virtually tamper-proof.
Enter the VVPAT system
In order to make the process more reassuring, the ECI introduced the Voter Verified Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) system in select constituencies starting with the 2014 general elections. Under the VVPAT, once the voter presses a button, the candidate’s name is printed on a slip of paper, shown to the voter and then dropped into the box below. It functions as a secondary step to allow the voter to know that they voted for the right candidate and then goes out of view.
ECI explainer on VVPAT:
Under the erstwhile paper ballot system, manipulating was far easier that it is with an EVM. Besides, the first major elections that used the EVM, the 2004 General Elections saw the incumbent Vajpayee government lose, making it quite clear that the system is far better than it is given credit for. Most political parties’ claim, today, that all the votes went to the BJP would be foolish given the outcome of elections in Tamil Nadu, Bihar, West Bengal, Kerala and the National Capital Territory of Delhi that were held in the last two years. Further, given what happened in Jharkhand in 2005, it is again foolish to assume that the current opposition parties aren’t innocent of such crimes.
Moral of the story: The next time any politician says ‘EVMs are tampered with, or hacked’, simply remember the folktale about the fox which couldn’t reach the grapes and then went away claiming that they were sour anyway.
Receive Daily Updates
Recent Posts
- In the Large States category (overall), Chhattisgarh ranks 1st, followed by Odisha and Telangana, whereas, towards the bottom are Maharashtra at 16th, Assam at 17th and Gujarat at 18th. Gujarat is one State that has seen startling performance ranking 5th in the PAI 2021 Index outperforming traditionally good performing States like Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka, but ranks last in terms of Delta
- In the Small States category (overall), Nagaland tops, followed by Mizoram and Tripura. Towards the tail end of the overall Delta ranking is Uttarakhand (9th), Arunachal Pradesh (10th) and Meghalaya (11th). Nagaland despite being a poor performer in the PAI 2021 Index has come out to be the top performer in Delta, similarly, Mizoram’s performance in Delta is also reflected in it’s ranking in the PAI 2021 Index
- In terms of Equity, in the Large States category, Chhattisgarh has the best Delta rate on Equity indicators, this is also reflected in the performance of Chhattisgarh in the Equity Pillar where it ranks 4th. Following Chhattisgarh is Odisha ranking 2nd in Delta-Equity ranking, but ranks 17th in the Equity Pillar of PAI 2021. Telangana ranks 3rd in Delta-Equity ranking even though it is not a top performer in this Pillar in the overall PAI 2021 Index. Jharkhand (16th), Uttar Pradesh (17th) and Assam (18th) rank at the bottom with Uttar Pradesh’s performance in line with the PAI 2021 Index
- Odisha and Nagaland have shown the best year-on-year improvement under 12 Key Development indicators.
- In the 60:40 division States, the top three performers are Kerala, Goa and Tamil Nadu and, the bottom three performers are Uttar Pradesh, Jharkhand and Bihar.
- In the 90:10 division States, the top three performers were Himachal Pradesh, Sikkim and Mizoram; and, the bottom three performers are Manipur, Assam and Meghalaya.
- Among the 60:40 division States, Orissa, Chhattisgarh and Madhya Pradesh are the top three performers and Tamil Nadu, Telangana and Delhi appear as the bottom three performers.
- Among the 90:10 division States, the top three performers are Manipur, Arunachal Pradesh and Nagaland; and, the bottom three performers are Jammu and Kashmir, Uttarakhand and Himachal Pradesh
- Among the 60:40 division States, Goa, West Bengal and Delhi appear as the top three performers and Andhra Pradesh, Telangana and Bihar appear as the bottom three performers.
- Among the 90:10 division States, Mizoram, Himachal Pradesh and Tripura were the top three performers and Jammu & Kashmir, Nagaland and Arunachal Pradesh were the bottom three performers
- West Bengal, Bihar and Tamil Nadu were the top three States amongst the 60:40 division States; while Haryana, Punjab and Rajasthan appeared as the bottom three performers
- In the case of 90:10 division States, Mizoram, Assam and Tripura were the top three performers and Nagaland, Jammu & Kashmir and Uttarakhand featured as the bottom three
- Among the 60:40 division States, the top three performers are Kerala, Andhra Pradesh and Orissa and the bottom three performers are Madhya Pradesh, Jharkhand and Goa
- In the 90:10 division States, the top three performers are Mizoram, Sikkim and Nagaland and the bottom three performers are Manipur and Assam
In a diverse country like India, where each State is socially, culturally, economically, and politically distinct, measuring Governance becomes increasingly tricky. The Public Affairs Index (PAI 2021) is a scientifically rigorous, data-based framework that measures the quality of governance at the Sub-national level and ranks the States and Union Territories (UTs) of India on a Composite Index (CI).
States are classified into two categories – Large and Small – using population as the criteria.
In PAI 2021, PAC defined three significant pillars that embody Governance – Growth, Equity, and Sustainability. Each of the three Pillars is circumscribed by five governance praxis Themes.
The themes include – Voice and Accountability, Government Effectiveness, Rule of Law, Regulatory Quality and Control of Corruption.
At the bottom of the pyramid, 43 component indicators are mapped to 14 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) that are relevant to the States and UTs.
This forms the foundation of the conceptual framework of PAI 2021. The choice of the 43 indicators that go into the calculation of the CI were dictated by the objective of uncovering the complexity and multidimensional character of development governance
The Equity Principle
The Equity Pillar of the PAI 2021 Index analyses the inclusiveness impact at the Sub-national level in the country; inclusiveness in terms of the welfare of a society that depends primarily on establishing that all people feel that they have a say in the governance and are not excluded from the mainstream policy framework.
This requires all individuals and communities, but particularly the most vulnerable, to have an opportunity to improve or maintain their wellbeing. This chapter of PAI 2021 reflects the performance of States and UTs during the pandemic and questions the governance infrastructure in the country, analysing the effectiveness of schemes and the general livelihood of the people in terms of Equity.
Growth and its Discontents
Growth in its multidimensional form encompasses the essence of access to and the availability and optimal utilisation of resources. By resources, PAI 2021 refer to human resources, infrastructure and the budgetary allocations. Capacity building of an economy cannot take place if all the key players of growth do not drive development. The multiplier effects of better health care, improved educational outcomes, increased capital accumulation and lower unemployment levels contribute magnificently in the growth and development of the States.
The Pursuit Of Sustainability
The Sustainability Pillar analyses the access to and usage of resources that has an impact on environment, economy and humankind. The Pillar subsumes two themes and uses seven indicators to measure the effectiveness of government efforts with regards to Sustainability.
The Curious Case Of The Delta
The Delta Analysis presents the results on the State performance on year-on-year improvement. The rankings are measured as the Delta value over the last five to 10 years of data available for 12 Key Development Indicators (KDI). In PAI 2021, 12 indicators across the three Pillars of Equity (five indicators), Growth (five indicators) and Sustainability (two indicators). These KDIs are the outcome indicators crucial to assess Human Development. The Performance in the Delta Analysis is then compared to the Overall PAI 2021 Index.
Key Findings:-
In the Scheme of Things
The Scheme Analysis adds an additional dimension to ranking of the States on their governance. It attempts to complement the Governance Model by trying to understand the developmental activities undertaken by State Governments in the form of schemes. It also tries to understand whether better performance of States in schemes reflect in better governance.
The Centrally Sponsored schemes that were analysed are National Health Mission (NHM), Umbrella Integrated Child Development Services scheme (ICDS), Mahatma Gandh National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGS), Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan (SmSA) and MidDay Meal Scheme (MDMS).
National Health Mission (NHM)
INTEGRATED CHILD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES (ICDS)
MID- DAY MEAL SCHEME (MDMS)
SAMAGRA SHIKSHA ABHIYAN (SMSA)
MAHATMA GANDHI NATIONAL RURAL EMPLOYMENT GUARANTEE SCHEME (MGNREGS)