Germany: an electronic machine with no print declared INCONSTITUTIONAL, for violating Rights and the Advertising Principle.
In GERMANY, there was a single election with an electronic ballot box and without the physical registration of the vote. The question of the unconstitutionality of this voting model was decided by the Federal Constitutional Court, a non-political court composed of 16 judges.
Process 2BvC3 / 07, the agreement of which was published on March 3, 2009, can be seen here.
A few months later, in Brazil, Congress sought to correct the unconstitutional deviation, but in vain, due to the decisions of the STF (which, because it is not independent from the electoral service), they are opposed to those of international courts, which take care to guarantee popular sovereignty. on suffrage. Otherwise, it would be to subject citizenship to the control of electoral administrators and thus universal, public suffrage ceases to exist, to be a restricted and private event, as occurs in Brazil.
According to the judges of the German Court, using these ballot boxes in the electoral process violates the Advertising Principle, or the basic right of a public election, by creating impediments to direct citizen control, as stated by the President of the Court, when announcing the decision:
Justifications, unconstitutionalities and violated rights, according to the German Court:
“DRE ballot boxes (similar to the Brazilian ones), which do not register the paper vote for the voter's conference, are INCONSTITUTIONAL, as they contradict the Advertising Principle in the electoral process, since they prevent the citizen, who does not have special experience on the subject, can reliably control the essential steps of voting and measuring the results ”.
“In the traditional electoral process, there is no such problem. Once the vote has been cast in the ballot box, anyone can follow the count closely at the electoral domicile. Manipulations in these cases are difficult, as they can be discovered at any time.
What does not happen in the case of electronic voting machines, in which the voter simply presses a button and the computer, hours later, expels a result. The ordinary citizen, in this case, has no means to investigate possible programming errors or deliberate fraud. ”
In this sense, the German judges stated that there was, with the use of the electronic ballot box in the 2005 elections, a transgression of the laws that guarantee the election as a public fact, not private or secret. And although the election has not been annulled, the first generation electronic ballot boxes, identical to the ones that Brazilian electoral administrators (TSE / STF) impose on Brazilians, since 1996, were extinguished there.
O long judgment of the German Supreme Court, created jurisprudence, demarcating principles and foundations on the use of voting machines and Considering contrary to the Advertising Principle the use of DRE machines without a printed vote that is eligible by the voter.
The following stands out from the judgment, as translated from Amilcar Brunazo for Portuguese:
When using electronic voting machines, every citizen must be able to monitor and understand, without specific technical knowledge and indirect intermediaries, the central stages of an election. It is essential that the citizen can reliably control the essential steps of voting and measuring the results.
The use of voting machines (DRE without Printed Voting Awarded by the Voter) in the election of the 16th German Parliament was not in accordance with the PUBLICITY PRINCIPLE in the electoral process implied in article 38, combined with article 20, paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Constitution.
THE PUBLICITY PRINCIPLE requires that all essential steps of the election are subject to public proof. The counting of votes is of particular importance in controlling elections.
Votes were recorded only in electronic memory. Neither voters, nor the electoral board or party representatives could verify that the votes were correctly registered by the voting machines. Based on the indicator on the control panel, the polling station can only detect whether the voting machine registered a vote, but not whether the votes were registered without change. Voting machines did not provide for the possibility of a vote registration independent of electronic memory, which would allow voters to check their votes.
The main steps in the processing of data by the voting machines could not be understood by the public. As the count is processed only inside the machines, neither election officials nor citizens interested in the result could check whether the votes cast were counted for the correct candidate or whether the totals assigned to each candidate were valid.
Based on a printed summary or on an electronic panel, it was not enough to check the result of the counting of votes at the central office. Like this, any public conference was excluded from the poll, which the citizens themselves could understand and trust without needing specialized technical knowledge.
India x Brazil, similarities and differences: Electronic voting machines and Supreme Courts
INDIA - a country with almost 1.5 billion inhabitants - has provisionally used an electronic voting model similar to that of Brazil, with the registration of votes only on the machine and without physical proof. Like in Brazil, they faced an abundance of reports of fraud, which went unpunished, without solution, given the impossibility of recounting. In addition to the discovery that fraudsters could invade the polls even with cell phone - same as in Brazil -, only here even with a battery radio!
However, in the face of immense mistrust (the same in Brazil), the multitudes of voters and politicians, India finally marked an abyss of difference: it abandoned the first generation electronic voting machines, leaving Brazil with exclusive ownership, the electorally isolated island from the world.
The decision was also marked by the abysmal difference between the Supreme Courts and on another emblematic date: in the month that the Brazilian (with 11 judges) buried the second Printed Voting Law, the Indian (with 34 judges), determined the mandatory Printed Vote.
Between 2010 and 2011 India has already started to implant the printed vote in some regions, but with the delay, in 2013 the Supreme Court of the greatest democracy in voter numbers, determined the Electoral Commission to make the Printed Vote viable across the country, to take effect in the 2014 elections.
The Commission replied that it would make every effort to implement the instructions of the Supreme Court. Everything was made possible with efficiency and currently the country has already moved towards an even more secure and sophisticated model.
Unlike the Brazilian electoral service, which accumulates the powers of the STF and has generated countless excuses to delay compliance with laws, which “would only strive” to bury.
Supreme Court of India: Printed Vote indispensable for the confidence of the citizen in transparent and fair elections.
Excerpt from the decision of the Supreme Court of India, issued by the then President of the Court.
Note 1: It was thanks to the physical registration of the vote in the electronic ballot box, that fraud in India - previously restricted to the field of unsolved complaints and fraudsters with impunity - could be fought, reversed, since the physical count confronts the virtual result.
Note 2: Similar decisions have taken larger courts in countries like Holland, France, Austria, Switzerland, among others. Check out excerpts from the book E-voting case law: A comparative analysis, available here.
What would the dialogue between the European and Indian courts be like, with Brazilian electoral administrators?
“The election as public fact it is the basic assumption for a democratic and political formation. It ensures a regular and understandable electoral process, thereby creating an essential prerequisite for reasoned confidence of the citizen in the correct procedure of the election. A public event like an election, implies that any citizen have the means to ascertain the vote count, as well as the regularity in the course of the election, without possessing special knowledge ”.
Votes registered only in electronic memory, neither the voters, nor the electoral board or the representatives of the parties can verify if the votes were correctly registered by the voting machines.
“The impression of the vote is a indispensable requirement for free, fair and transparent elections, which will restore voter confidence and guarantee a recount in case of disputes.
Voting machines with the printed vote guarantee the accuracy of the voting system. In order to have full transparency in the system and restore voter confidence, it is necessary to configure the electronic voting machine with a printing system, (VVPAT - Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail), because the vote is nothing more than an act of expression that has immense importance in the democratic system. ” Indian Supreme Court.
A tiny comparative. Only five personalities speak for everyone, since the thought is publicly identical.
“If there is no account (because it is a very personal act), what is the role for? If the system endows itself with indisputable security, (?!?) Why should the impression? ” Minister Carmen Lucia, voting for the repeal of the 2009 printed voting law, (who for the second time was stillborn), recalls the colonels of the Old Republic: “why do you want to know about your vote? Don't you trust my accounts? Don't you know who you voted for? ”
Other supreme courts would answer: For the constitution to be fulfilled, where public service exists to serve and be accountable, not to be served. The voter should not be a subject of the electoral service and suffer his intermediation, because only the act of voting is secret, but elections are a public event and as such, they need to offer from the verification of the vote to the public recount.
“I do not look favorably on those who suspect electronic voting machines. I chaired (in the TSE) the first elections with the electronic system, in 1996, and since then we have not had a minimally serious challenge regarding the counting of votes. ”
Printed Vote: “The Supreme Court already had the opportunity to comment on it in the past and now we have a new law. A new questioning will be necessary in the STF“.
The supreme courts and electoral managers of all the main democracies, would answer the minister: "we do not see with good eyes who refuses to promote transparency in the elections".
“Distrusting the electronic ballot box is complex of mongrel“, says the head of the electoral service bytes, offending the 9 out of 10 Brazilians who do not trust the polls and all who pay for their office - public. ”
“Are we going to bring the paper back to see if the computer added up right? (What for? The guarantee of the sum soy io!) We have the presence of experts from the Federal Police in public tests. And also the Public Ministry. The party that lost the elections in 2014 [PSDB], filed an audit request. They found nothing. There was even a little lack of ethics to admit that no irregularities were found. ”
Would the co-author of the electronic ballot boxes be labeling mongrels, also the rest of the world who reject their ballot boxes? India, Russia and a few other countries that use electronic voting machines - but with printing? Europe, Japan, North America voting on paper?
There are so many fake news in an interview that other supreme courts don't even have to answer. We answered:
– PF experts go to the polls and ask for a printed vote.
“There was fraud with a printed vote. The real fact (!?!) Is that no fraud against the electronic ballot box has ever been proven. In fact, the history of the Brazilian Republic is the history of successive electoral frauds ”.
To the minister, the international Courts would respond, that in the system that he so “believes” and wants to make believe, the fraud happens without leaving a trace, that's why these polls are tragic, since even their defenders cannot audit them, except by looking at a display full of obscure codes, like wild Indians, in front of a Mac book. In fact, he forgets that all attempts at the Printed Vote were buried it is us we go back to the 18th century and the Old Republic, from electronic voting machines.
"We did a public security test so that everyone tried to hack the system and it didn't happen."
All the experts would answer: “No minister, it was not a test, but in the few performed, all were victorious in hacking and proved that their polls are insecure, outdated, obsolete. That's why we all recommend Printed Voting regardless of the ballot box's software. ”
“There are people who believe in Saci Pererê. The polls are inviolable! ” Toffoli's statement in the face of criticism of the ballot box. Perhaps he refers to 92% of Brazilians who do not trust the system, or 127 million Japanese, 742 million Europeans, 572 million North Americans, 1.3 billion Indians and most of the world! Because everyone, reject the Brazilian polls, obscure, obsolete, without transparency and an instrument of kidnapping democracy in any country.