The Ateneo Commission on Elections (Comelec) is starting to sound like a broken record.
At the start of every election season, candidates are often at a loss as to what to do. Unclear instructions coupled with strict deadlines do not make for a good combination. Add to that the possibility of initially being disqualified despite passing all necessary documents, no thanks to Comelec’s faulty record-keeping.
Every year, candidates complain about election violations. They ask why the campaign paraphernalia of Candidate X are posted near polling stations, and they question Comelec’s lack of action to prevent such things from occurring.
Last year, the poll body introduced automated elections, touted as a sign of their efforts towards the improvement of their services. Yet a slew of problems still followed, and most of them were not of the machine error kind: reports of voting stations closing down for “lunch break,” lack of privacy safeguards, undermanned booths, missing candidate names. And the much publicized automated process? Connectivity problems were rampant, forcing potential voters to either transfer to another, presumably working polling station—or to just give up for good.
Information dissemination problems hounded this year’s freshman elections. Lost freshman candidates wandered from building to building, looking for the venue of their required general assembly. As it turns out, they weren’t properly told that the venues had been changed.
Upperclassmen tried to vote during the special elections—held concurrently with the freshman polls—but the poll officers were apparently not informed. Is it really a surprise that not one of the candidates for the special elections met the 50%+1 quota?
Each time, Comelec officials says they will review the commission’s rules, close all loopholes, and take note of all recommendations in preparation for the next election season. Every year, it’s the same old problems, same old complaints. And every year, there remains this resounding fact: all these could be easily avoided.
More than a way to hasten the ballot counting process through automation, the poll body needs to go back to the basics. Candidates and voters alike would be more satisfied with a transparent, error-free election period than with a speedy yet suspect proclamation of winners. Comelec should focus on building a solid electoral code devoid of loopholes and creating a strong system for consistently implementing all election rules and responding to election violations.
Comelec’s performance is crucial to the election process not only because they handle the polls, but, more importantly, because they occupy an important position in promoting student participation in the Ateneo political scene.
Each mistake is another opportunity for improvement, and the poll body says that they are doing their best to improve their services. Comelec deserves recognition for trying, but the student body it serves needs more than just the effort to try.
