U-TURN? CEO says EVM at Cuncolim gave 17 votes to Congress and not to BJP

Chief Election Officer exposes vulnerability of EVMs; Congress rejects claim four days after poll

Team Herald
PANJIM: The doubts raised by the Opposition parties that electronic voting machines (EVMs) cannot be trusted and can be tempered with have been vindicated by the Chief Electoral Officer (CEO). The CEO has acknowledged that the EVM used during the mock poll in polling station 31 in Cuncolim polled votes to a different party then it was polled for.
On Friday, CEO Kunal issued a statement stating, “The political parties, candidates and general public is hereby informed that during the mock poll in PS 31 of AC 34 Cuncolim, South Goa PC, the EVM was found to be malfunctioning, due to which it was replaced with a completely new set from the reserve pool. The polling at this polling station was conducted with this replaced set of EVM and VVPAT, in which the mock poll was carried out accurately in the presence of the polling agents, with perfect match between the CU result and VVPAT slips.”
Kunal further said, “It is abundantly clarified that the allegations of 17 votes being cast for the BJP candidate during the first mock poll with the defective machine is completely false, misleading and factually not correct. In fact, during the said mock poll, 17 votes were recorded in favour of Indian National Congress (INC) candidate Cosme Francisco Caitano Sardinha.”
The statement four days after the polling process had been completed has raised eyebrows. Leader of the Opposition Chandrakant (Babu) Kavlekar rejected the claim of the CEO and said that the polling staff of the Election Commission was present when the questions were raised and they had accepted the fact that the BJP had got 17, Congress had got 9 and AAP 8. 
“And now to come up after four days with a statement that the votes had gone to the Congress and not the BJP is not acceptable. The CEO is behaving like an agent of the BJP,” he accused.
AAP State convenor and South Goa candidate Elvis Gomes questioned the timing of the CEO’s statement. “Why did it take them four days to come up with a clarification? The Election Commission officials present at the booth admitted that there is a problem and replaced the machine and now after four days they issue a statement that the votes had not gone to the BJP but to the Congress.”
Questioning the motive, Gomes said, “Issue is not it is gone to the BJP or the Congress, issue is that it is capable of transferring your votes to somebody else. Now they want to divert their attention that the votes have gone to the Congress and not to the BJP.” 
Indication that EVMs can transfer votes: Aam Aadmi Party
Reacting to the statement by the CEO, Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) Goa convenor and South Goa candidate, Elvis Gomes said this is a clear admission by the Election Commission that these machines are faulty and capable of transferring the sacred vote to somebody else.
Gomes said, “That clearly indicates that these machines are capable of transferring votes. The very fact that the votes have gone to somebody else shows that all along what people have been talking about the vulnerability of the EVMs is proved true.”
Stating that even if one machine behaves erratically, there is a suspicion that gets developed that these machines are capable of behaving erratically in favour of certain political parties, Gomes alleged that if this can happen in one case then it can go wrong in as many cases as anyone wants.
“The suspicion is not about all the machines. It is done at random and it is done in certain percentage. You will not find every machine going wrong, you will find that a percentage of machines will go wrong and it is worked out in such a way that only a certain percent of machines will go wrong and that is what leads to their victory,” he alleged.
He further stated that the statement would now be produced as evidence to prove their case in the Apex Court where a petition is pending against the use of EVMs. “Now that it has officially come we will produce this official version of theirs before the Supreme Court in the petition already filed before the court,” he added.

Share This Article