Former IAS officer Kannan Gopinathan and Computer Science expert Madhav Deshpande, provided critical insights into the electoral system.
Photo for representation only. (Flickr)
Two notable personalities — former IAS officer Kannan Gopinathan and Computer Science expert Madhav Deshpande — have provided critical insights into the current electoral system.
Their remarks came amidst the ongoing debate over the credibility of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) in India.
The experts explored the intricacies of electronic voting technologies and their impact on citizens’ voting rights during a virtual discussion hosted by Peoples’ Union of Civil Liberties in Maharashtra on “Can Electronic Voting Technology Ensure the Right to Vote?” on Friday, 2 February.
During the discussion that spanned over one and a half hours, Gopinathan, who has extensive involvement in the electoral processes since 2013, expressed his views on EVMs which showed a significant shift from his earlier opinions.
Initially a strong supporter of the machines, Gopinathan highlighted the safeguards and vulnerabilities of the EVMs in a detailed account.
He said his scepticism arose during his role as a returning officer in 2019, particularly regarding the hurried introduction of Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) devices.
Gopinathan criticised the lack of transparency in the verification process and concluded with a call for a re-evaluation, emphasising the need for transparency in the electoral process.
Deshpande, a respected expert in Computer Science and Engineering, addressed critical concerns surrounding the current EVM system.
He proposed a fundamental shift in EVM management, advocating for simultaneous transmission of the voter’s choice to both the control and VVPAT units, with exclusive connectivity between the VVPAT and ballot units.
He underscored the potential manipulation of VVPAT due to its location and urged essential upgrades to the outdated EVM design.
Deshpande emphasised the electronic pairing of the control unit and ballot unit for enhanced authentication, along with the integration of GPS technology for traceability.
The perspectives of both Gopinathan and Deshpande highlight the urgency for comprehensive reforms in the Indian electoral process, especially with the functioning of EVMs.
Gopinathan delved into the intricacies of the safeguards and potential vulnerabilities associated with EVMs and VVPATs.
He highlighted the Election Commission of India (ECI)’s arguments surrounding the technical, physical, and administrative safeguards in place.
He emphasised the rudimentary nature of EVMs: Their one-time programmable design, lack of electronic information assets, and the candidate-agnostic nature of the machine.
In 2019, Gopinathan was appointed a returning officer for a Lok Sabha constituency. Following that, he started to develop concerns around the introduction of VVPAT devices, particularly the process of uploading candidate information to the VVPAT, which raised questions about potential connections and external devices.
Gopinathan’s detailed analysis scrutinised the safeguards and checks associated with EVMs and VVPATs. He expressed concerns about the candidate-aware nature of VVPATs and the potential for intelligent manipulation.
Additionally, he questioned the timing of randomisations, the lack of transparency in the VVPAT’s connection to external devices, and the surrendering of verifiability aspects.
The former IAS officer criticised the hurried introduction of VVPAT devices, highlighting flaws in the design and the lack of emphasis on transparency and verifiability.
He argued that the VVPAT verification process was compromised, and the audit approach was insufficient, challenging the ECI’s decision to count only a limited number of VVPAT slips.
Gopinathan’s analysis concluded with a call for a revaluation of the electoral process, and the need for transparency in voting and counting.
His nuanced critique raised important questions about the effectiveness and integrity of EVMs in the Indian electoral system.
Deshpande highlighted critical concerns surrounding the current EVM system and proposed comprehensive reforms to fortify the electoral process.
Deshpande’s analysis began by addressing the existing EVM management and the vulnerabilities associated with the VVPAT.
He underscored the potential transmission of incorrect votes and the sensitive nature of VVPAT’s location within the system.
“The EVM management at present is flawed. The VVPAT — a crucial component — is the weakest link in the system. It may transmit a different vote than what the voter intended,” said Deshpande.
He proposed a fundamental shift in the arrangement, envisioning a system where the voter’s choice is simultaneously transmitted to both the control unit and VVPAT, with the VVPAT exclusively connected to the ballot unit.
“The desirable arrangement would be that if the voter decides on a vote, say a blue vote, and that blue is simultaneously transmitted to the control unit and VVPAT. This way, the VVPAT prints the blue receipt for voters to verify, and the control unit registers the same blue vote,” explained Deshpande.
Deshpande expresses concern over the susceptibility of VVPAT to location-based manipulation and advocates for its relocation within the system.
“As a technical person, I believe VVPAT should not be connected to the control unit due to the inherent risks. The connection via a serial cable allows two-way communication, posing a significant threat of data manipulation,” warned Deshpande.
He said his proposal would ensure transparency and eliminate the risk of discrepancies between the printed receipt and stored data.
Deshpande criticised the outdated design of the EVM system, dating back to 1977, and called for essential upgrades to keep pace with technological advancements.
“The failure of the ECI is evident in not upgrading the EVM design over time. Visual identification of control and ballot units is insufficient, allowing for potential replacements without electronic recognition,” said Deshpande.
To address this, he proposed electronic pairing of the control unit and the ballot unit using a serial cable just before the commencement of polling. This process would include storing unique identifiers, serial numbers, and timestamps, enhancing the authentication and security of the system.
Furthermore, Deshpande advocated the need for traceability in modern EVMs, suggesting the integration of GPS technology to track control units and ballot units.
“Make the control units traceable using GPS technology. Today, we have the means to ensure their location is traceable, preventing any security threats arising from missing or tampered units,” urged Deshpande.
While concluding, Deshpande called for immediate action, including pairing before polling, verification before counting and a robust audit trail for each EVM sub-unit.
“Ideally, each sub-unit should have a full audit trail, recording every step, including power-on events. The proof of the integrity of the system must come from the system itself,” asserted Deshpande.
May 19, 2024
May 17, 2024
May 14, 2024
May 14, 2024
May 13, 2024
May 13, 2024
