Is Automated Election Smart?

Since the ancient discovery that man learned how to count through the use of objects, the significance of knowing how many and how much to human survival and development can never be underscored. In democracies such as ours, the leaders are placed in positions by counting how many of the qualified population voted for each candidate. However, the magnitude of the task becomes more complex as this population grows.

The past national election results created a degree of discontent; thus, the losing candidates went all out to demerit those who won. For the national elections come May 2010, an automated election is being pursued in order to make counting and delivering results fast and, hopefully, precise. Just how fast, at the same time precise, the performance of the machines would be during the canvassing remains to be seen. The growing concerns over teachers not having been trained to use the machines and over the number of machines not being enough for all election polls all point to fears of another problem-laden election turnout. Time would have been a great partner of government in making the automation known to most people, establishing the credibility of those who will provide the machines, making the machines available in all precints so voters will be able to witness the demonstration of its advantages, and allowing people to appreciate the innovation well before election day.

As our government is a tapestry with layers of initiations, endorsements, decisions and approvals before any action could be taken, the meaning of time for the people is belittled by the executors or by the process, or both. The tendency to rush, run after deadlines, declare emergencies, and do troubleshooting are indicators of a system long dated and due for repair itself. Time recognizes nothing and no one. We tend to forget that TIME goes on, with our successes or with our failures as a people.