I pose the question as gently as possible to the Commission on Elections (Comelec) and Leni Robredo, who is itching for coronation as vice-president-elect in the May 9 elections.
The question is this:
“If, as already established, Smartmatic can insert a command into the automated election system that will instruct it to change every question mark (?) into an “ñ”, does it not logically follow that Smartmatic could also instruct the system to change a Marcos vote into a Robredo vote at particular points or times of the vote count?”
The answer is unavoidably “yes, it can,” under the rules of logic and computer systems.
I shall watch eagerly how Andy Bautista will wrestle with this question before bowing to its unassailable logic.
In my house, there are two people who understand computer programming (my wife is a programmer, my son worked as an executive with computers), and they assure me that my question is valid. Computers are highly logical and obedient.
Comelec and Smartmatic could also have cheated Duterte of victory. But the administration feared the turmoil and upheaval that would have followed. The people would never accept a Roxas victory. Even the crooked and unbalanced BS Aquino cringed from this final solution.
BS was more eager for a scorched-earth policy toward Bongbong.
Why two counts in our democracy?
Foreign observers, including members of the diplomatic community, cannot comprehend why the Philippines has two vote counts in its elections, one official and another unofficial.
The United States, United Kingdom, France, Australia, and other modern democracies have only one election count—the official tally of votes. Candidates wait only for this count to either claim victory or concede defeat.
Not one of them has anything resembling the Parish Pastoral Council for Responsible Voting (PPCRV).
My explanation for the presence of the PPCRV in our election process is that it is a throwback to the time when the results of our national elections took an agonizing time to complete. We had to compensate by creating quick-count operations.
When the country adopted an automated election system in 2010, Comelec unthinkingly continued the quick-count system, which became a redundancy after results could be known on election day.
Comelec has not offered one sensible reason for accrediting a watchdog in the 2016 elections. Does it not trust itself to be honest and fair?
Bongbong Marcos is no fool
Asking Bongbong Marcos to concede based on a dubious count is like asking him to apologize for his father.
Both demands have no basis in fact and in law. He cannot accede to either without being scorned as a fool.
Marcos is indubitably correct when he says that the entire electoral process was placed under a cloud of doubt after the Commission on Elections revealed that the hash codes of the transparency server were tweaked in the early hours of vote counting on May 9.
Instead of being alarmed, Comelec Chairman Andy Bautista downplayed the breach, saying it will have no bearing on the results.
No bearing? This makes him complicit in the irregularity.
Smoking gun of election fraud
I think Senator Marcos is too gentlemanly to ask the tough question I asked above, which destroys the no-harm-no-foul defense of Comelec and Smartmatic.
There is an instructive article on one website (www.thinkingpinoy.net), which successfully explains to a computer amateur like me what happened when Smartmatic altered the hash codes.
The piece is entitled: “BBM vs Leni: Forget Math, Hash Code is the Smoking Gun.”
The author patiently reconstructs everything that happened on the evening of May 9, based on a line-by-line analysis of Comelec-Smartmatic’s linux commands to the system.
Understanding a few simple concepts is in order here:
1. Our computers use Windows or MacOS as its operating system.
2. Comelec-Smartmatic, on the other hand, uses Linux as its operating system.
3. The PPCRV count began right after voting precincts closed at 5 p.m. of May 9. BBM led the race by a wide margin for the first couple of hours and BBM supporters thought he would never have to look back. In a surprising twist, however, Leni slowly inched closer and finally overtook BBM in the early morning of May 10.
4. BBM accused Leni of cheating. Leni accused BBM of bitterness. It was one side’s word against the other… until a PPCRV IT expert blew the whistle that a Smartmatic technician tampered with the Comelec transparency server.
5. Based on the whistleblower’s disclosures, the Comelec Transparency Server used two different programs: one before 8 p.m., May 9, and another after that.
6. The IT expert explained the extent of the Venezuelan technicians’s breach of security:
“The Smartmatic IT expert’s job was only to ‘receive, decrypt and distribute’ the files. He introduced a new script, a new computer program and commands that could alter everything and supersede the existing program.”
Claiming victory on dubious grounds
Leni Robredo’s preemptive claim of victory depends entirely on the PPCRV count, which in turn is wholly based on the PPCRV transparency server. She must face the reality that the server is the one that Smartmatic tampered with.
Who but the most naïve would claim victory based on an unofficial count and under suspicious circumstances?
Her position has been undercut by Mr. Duterte’s two-fisted declaration yesterday that he will not accept victory on questionable grounds.
Robredo is obviously no Duterte.
Since Smartmatic tampering affected only the PPCRV transparency server, and did not cover also the official certificates of canvass (COC), it is reasonable to expect that the official canvass will produce a result different from the PPCRV count.
This is already showing in the results from the overseas voting, which have been tallied separately by the National Board of Canvassers (NBOC), and have shown a decisive win by Bongbong over Robredo, by a margin of two to one.
Here then lie salvation for the May 9 elections, and victory for the truly deserving. For the winners by fraud, a change of occupation may be the only option.