1 / 21

A Review/Analysis of Smartmatic -TIM Corp.’s “Mock Elections Summary Report”

A Review/Analysis of Smartmatic -TIM Corp.’s “Mock Elections Summary Report” Dated August 3, 2012 on the Mock Elections Conducted on July 24-25, 2012 at the House of Representative’s Hearing of the Committee on Suffrage & Electoral Reforms (CSER)

catrin
Download Presentation

A Review/Analysis of Smartmatic -TIM Corp.’s “Mock Elections Summary Report”

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. A Review/Analysis of Smartmatic-TIM Corp.’s “Mock Elections Summary Report” Dated August 3, 2012 on the Mock Elections Conducted on July 24-25, 2012 at the House of Representative’s Hearing of the Committee on Suffrage & Electoral Reforms (CSER) By: transparentelections.org.ph

  2. Four positions were audited during the Mock Elections ... • President – 55(?) candidates • Senators – 55 • Party List – 55 • House Member – 32 Total - 197 candidates

  3. Summary of Key Facts for the Audit, as presented on page 10 of Smartmatic’s Report:

  4. Summary of Key Facts for the Audit, as presented on page 10 of Smartmatic’s Report:

  5. Further ... … we say that Smartmatic’serror rate is 557 times the TOR*-defined requirement of 1 error in 20,000 marks! *TOR – Terms of Reference in the 2010 Comelec-Smartmatic-TIM contract

  6. Variance To illustrate how they computed the Variance, let us use the results for Presidential candidates #25 and #26. In this example, the Smartmatic interpretation will say the variance is 0. Using the logic of Smartmatic, then the accuracy rate is an illogical 100%!!!! The Smartmatic method covers up electronic Dagdag-Bawas!

  7. Variance We all know, however, that the correct way for computing the total variance is to use the absolute values of the variances per candidate. Yet, Smartmatic says that theirs is the “more accurate way”. Huh?!

  8. Variance Smartmatic says: VARIANCE = 107 But using the absolute values of the variances for all 197 candidates ... … we get: VARIANCE = 231 Smartmatic is therefore WRONG!!!

  9. Percentage of Match Smartmatic says: Percentage of Match is 99.98710% We say: Percentage of Match is 42.13198%

  10. Percentage of Match Smartmatic says: No known mathematical formula could result in their claim of 99.98710%, so we tried to speculate on how Smartmatic might have arrived at the figure.

  11. Percentage of Match This formula might have been used: Percentage of Match = 100(?) – (Variance/PCOS Count) so that, Percentage of Match = 100 – (107 / 8,295) Percentage of Match = 100 – 0.012899 Percentage of Match = 99.98710 Strangely, the percent symbol (%) was appended to the computed result, so that: Percentage of Match = 99.98710%

  12. Percentage of Match Or perhaps this formula: Percentage of Match = 1 – (Variance/PCOS Count) Percentage of Match = 1 – (107 / 8,295) Percentage of Match = 1 – 0.012899 Percentage of Match = 0.98710 Then prefix the result with “99” and append it with %, Percentage of Match = 99.98710% Weird? We agree!

  13. Matched Count Unmatched Count Percentage of Match So, what should the Percentage of Match be? The Percentage of Match is the ratio of the (no. of candidates where the Manual Count and the PCOS Count matched) over the (total no. of candidates), expressed as a percentage.

  14. Percentage of Match Based on the following results of the Manual Count and PCOS Count (per candidate): • Total no. of candidates in all positions audited = 197 • No. of candidates whose Manual Count and PCOS Count matched = 83 • No. of candidates whose Manual Count and PCOS Count DID not match = 114 Percentage of Match should therefore be Percentage of Match = 83/197 x 100% Percentage of Match = 0.4213198 x 100% Percentage of Match = 42.13198% Smartmatic is again WRONG!!!

  15. Accuracy COMELEC, in its Request for Proposal for the automation of the 2010 National and Local Elections (NLE), required an Accuracy Rate of 99.995%, which means that only 1 error in 20,000 marks is allowed.

  16. Accuracy • Accuracy Rate = (1 – Variance/PCOS Count) x 100% • The correct Variance, as we have determined, is 231 • The PCOS count presented by Smartmatic is 8,295 • Therefore, • Accuracy Rate = (1 – 231/8295) x 100% • Accuracy Rate = (1 – .0278481) x 100% • Accuracy Rate = 97.21519%

  17. Accuracy The Accuracy Rate of 97.21519% translates to an error rate that is 557* timesthe TOR-defined requirement of 1 error in 20,000 marks! *(1-0.9721519) x (20,000) = 556.962

  18. Questions for ... Smartmatic • Why did they measure the performance of PCOS during the Mock Elections in terms of Percentage of Match when there is no mention at all of this term in the TOR; it should have been Accuracy Rate. • Smartmatic should explain their formulas for computing Variance and Percentage of Match. • Smartmatic should explain why they shouldn’t be disqualified as a Comelec vendor when they failed dismally to meet the accuracy rate requirement.

  19. Questions for ... COMELEC • Why is Comelec so fixated on Smartmatic, when the latter can’t even meet the Comelec-defined Accuracy Rate requirement of 99.995%? • Shouldn’t the Comelec disqualify Smartmatic as a vendor, not only for falling short of the requirements, but more grievous, for trying to deceive the Comelec by using incorrect and improper formulas to hide their failures? • Comelec should release to the IT community the detailed working papers of PPCRV in the conduct of the Random Manual Audit in 2010 so that its failure, like Smartmatic’s, can also be unmasked.

  20. Questions for ... The Public • Now that the results of the Mock Elections have been explained, what does the public think? Was it incompetence, or deception? • Mukhang ginagago na tayo. Hanggang kailan ba natin papayagan ito?

  21. Maraming salamat po.

More Related