Machine Translated by Google

ANALYSIS OF ELECTRONIC CANTALS IN PUERTO RICO:

A STEP TOWARDS DEMOCRATIC MODERNIZATION

ARTICLE

ISABEL SIERRA VELAZQUEZ*

Introduction ................................................. ................................................................ .......1305

I. Electronic scrutiny in Puerto Rico ................................................ ................. 1308
II. Some advantages of electronic scrutiny .................................................. ........ 1310
III. Some disadvantages of electronic scrutiny .................................................. 1315
IV. Possible implications of electronic scrutiny ............................................... 1317
A. Rethinking Suárez Cáceres v. State Election Commission ............... 1318
B. The importance of Santini Gaudier v. EEC ................................................. 1320
C. Preferential Voting: A viable proposal? ................................................. 1323
Recommendations and conclusions ................................................... ........................... 1323

INTRODUCTION

L
TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCES HAVE HAD A TRANSFORMATIVE EFFECT ON
how we do various tasks of daily living, how we communicate
we and relate to others. The exercise of our right to vote is no exception to this
new paradigm of technology.1 These advances have caused us to rethink the forms of
participation, including the way in which we exercise the right to vote. Electronic voting,
informative voting, computerized voting, electrovoting, electronic scrutiny, among others, are
concepts used today and were not part of the democratic terminology fifty years ago. Although
the effect of technology and social networks on electoral processes deserves a broad analysis,
in this article we will focus on the

* Second-year student at the Law School of the University of Puerto Rico and Editor of Volume
LXXXV of the Law Magazine of the University of Puerto Rico.
1 See Niels Spierings & Kristof Jacobs, Getting Personal? The Impact of Social Media on Preferential
Voting, 36 POL. BEHAV. 215, 218 (2014) (“social media can also impact voting itself, as they can
persuade a voter to cast a preference vote for a particular candidate . . . . There are at least two con
ceivable ways social media can have an impact: a 'direct' effect of the number of social media 'followers'
on the number of preference votes a candidate receives and an interaction effect combining the
number of followers and actual social media usage”) (notes omitted).

1305
Machine Translated by Google

1306 UPR LEGAL MAGAZINE Vol.85

electronic scrutiny, given its prompt implementation in the Primaries and

General Elections in Puerto Rico during 2016.2
Electronic scrutiny assumes that vote counting is done by “devices
capable of 'reading' marks made by the voter on a ballot with a ballpoint
pen”,3 rather than by election officials counting the votes one by one, which
is known as as manual scrutiny. That is, the vote is done in the same way,
but now a machine will count the votes cast. Thus, electronic scrutiny is
distinguished from electronic voting, understood as "the precise act in which
the caster of the vote deposits or expresses his will through electronic means
(electronic ballot boxes) or any other technology for receiving the vote" .4
Through electronic scrutiny, the voter "does not come into direct contact with
the technology[, but] his ballot paper -which continues to be in paper format-
does come into contact with the reading and counting device".5 Therefore ,
we see that electronic counting implies a paradigm shift in the way votes are
counted, but the exercise of voting with a pen or pencil remains the same.

Some will say that the scope of electronic scrutiny is limited, since it only
affects the vote count, unlike electronic voting, which further streamlines
electoral processes. Others will comment that at this point technology should
be used to foster more democratic participation. However, we understand that
the value of electronic scrutiny should not be underestimated, since it lies not
only in speeding up vote counting, but also in the considerable confidence
that voters and the political system in general gain in the effective counting
of each vote. vote. Likewise, due to the ignorance that some voters may
have of the details of each election and their respective ballot, electronic
scrutiny provides the opportunity for the voter to vote properly. In turn, the
emergence of new players in the electoral game, among them emerging
parties or independent candidates, raises a very serious concern.

2 Antonio R. Gómez, Electronic scrutiny on track for 2016, EL NUEVO DÍA (October 2, 2015), http://
www.elnuevodia.com/noticias/politica/nota/encaminadoelescrutinioelectronicoparael2016-2107112/ (last visit 5
May 2016); Nydia Bauzá, Yes, the primaries are going and with electronic scrutiny, PRIMERA HORA (April 22,
2016), http://www.primerahora.com/noticias/gobierno-politica/nota/sivanlasprimariasyconescrutinioelectronico-1149377/
(last visit 5 May 2016).
3 Julio Telléz Valdés, Electronic voting, 14 SELECTED ISSUES OF ELECTORAL LAW 7, 26 (2010),
http://www.te.gob.mx/documentacion/publicaciones/Temas_selectos/14_voto.pdf.
4 Id. at p. 16.
5 Id. on p. 26. In the momentous case of Bush v. Gore, Judge Rehnquist elaborated on the differences between
traditional voting and electronic voting: “No reasonable person would call it 'an error in the vote tabulation', or a
'rejection of . . . legal votes,' when electronic or electromechanical equipment performs precisely in the manner
designed, and fails to count those ballots that are not marked in the manner that these voting instructions explicitly
and prominently specify”. Bush v. Gore, 531 US 98, 119 (2000) (Rehnquist, concurring opinion) (citation omitted).
For Rehnquist, the biggest difference is that electronic counting automatically discards votes that were not used
in accordance with the law, while manual vote counting is more subject to criticism because the votes were not
properly counted or because votes were rejected. valid of the voters.
Machine Translated by Google

No. 4 (2016) ANALYSIS OF THE ELECTRONIC CANTALY IN PUERTO RICO 1307

genuine: how will you ensure that your votes are counted in polling stations
where they do not have election officials? All these concerns could be effectively
addressed by electronic scrutiny, since each voter can trust that their vote will
be counted once their ballot is inserted into the electronic device. For this reason,
we are of the opinion that electronic scrutiny gives meaning to the words of our
Constitution when it defines a democratic system "as one where the will of the
people is the source of public power"6 and when it establishes that " the
expression of the will of the people through universal, equal, direct and secret
suffrage, and [will] protect[] the citizen against any coercion in the exercise of
electoral prerogative.”7 Through electronic scrutiny, a voter may express his or
her vote . participate in the election directly and secretly and protecting that
their vote is the same as that of the other voters. This guarantees that it is not
illegally altered or damaged by an electoral official or invalidated for not complying
with some formality that the voter himself was unaware of.

In order to understand how it is possible for citizens to exercise their right to

vote, in Part I we discuss the controversies that have been the protagonist, since
its inception, of the auction process where the company that would manufacture
the machines for electronic scrutiny was finally chosen. Being a new system to
be implemented in Puerto Rico, in Part II we compare how electronic scrutiny
has worked in other countries, and we point out its main advantages and benefits.
Since no system is perfect, in Part III we mention the most common challenges
and fears of electronic scrutiny, considering what we must do to overcome them
and achieve a successful implementation of said system in our country.

By way of criticism, in Part IV-A we analyze the opinion of the Supreme

Court on the blank votes and we propose the revision of this on the understanding
that said votes reflect a valid expression that must be taken into consideration
when they are counted through of electronic scrutiny. Taking into consideration
the little information to which the public has had access to date, in Part IV-B we
comment on the Santini Gaudier v. State Elections Commission and we reiterate
how essential it is that the people educate themselves regarding electronic
scrutiny, its implementation and operation. In order to find a structural solution to
the problem of closed bipartisanship in Puerto Rico, in Part IV-C we describe the
alternative preferential voting system, its different aspects and benefits, and how
it could be implemented more efficiently using electronic scrutiny. Finally, by
way of conclusion, we gave ourselves the task of proposing ideas to ensure the
successful execution of the

6 CONST. PR pmbl. (“What we understand by a democratic system is one where the will of the
people is the source of public power, where the political order is subordinated to the rights of man and
where the free participation of citizens in collective decisions is ensured”.).
7 CONST. PR art. II, § 2.
Machine Translated by Google

1308 UPR LEGAL MAGAZINE Vol.85

electronic scrutiny. In addition, we reiterate the importance of electronic

scrutiny to vindicate the right of citizens to vote, with all the guarantees that
this right entails.

I. ELECTRONIC COUNTING IN PUERTO RICO

As of the primaries to be held in June 2016, electronic scrutiny will be

used as a means to count the votes. Since its inception, the discussion of
electronic vote counting has been controversial, largely due to the hassled
process of selecting the company that will prepare the machines to be used
on the day of the primaries and general elections. On Monday, August 31,
2015, the State Election Commission (CEE) signed a contract with the
Canadian company Dominion Voting Systems.8 This company participated,
along with others, in an auction process from which it was finally successful.
However, the auction process was fraught with disputes, disputes and
misunderstandings, which led Smartmatic, one of the interested companies,
to go to court to challenge the auction and request that a new proceeding be
opened.9 The EEC He opposed filing a motion to dismiss in which he argued
that all the requirements established by law were met. Finally, Judge Angel
Pagán Ocasio ruled in favor of the EEC and ordered Smartmatic to pay the
legal fees.10
The electronic scrutiny system to be implemented in Puerto Rico,
although it may seem like it, is not new. The ballots that will be used will be
subject to an optical lens scanner that has been used on different occasions
since the 1980s, such as the SAT11 standardized tests. On the other hand,
it should be noted that the electronic counting mechanism may be subject to
changes, whether technological or electoral in nature. With the latter, we
refer to the amendments that may be made to the Electoral Law of the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (hereinafter, Electoral Law)12 in order to
allow votes that are currently not valid, such as voting in white, they will be in the future.
In turn, while the system may allow invalid votes to be corrected (through
the act of reinserting the corrected ballot), we maintain that it remains equally
important to follow the provisions of the Electoral Law .

8 Nydia Bauzá, Millionaire firm contracted the EEC for electronic scrutiny, EL NUEVO DÍA (August 31, 2015),
http://www.primerahora.com/noticias/gobierno-politica/nota/firmamillonario
contratolaceeparaelescrutinioelectronico-1105669/ (last visit April 6, 2016).
9 See Smartmatic International Holding BV v. CEE, KPE 2015-2942 (904) (TPI, San Juan, October 1, 2015).

10 ID

11 Daniel P. Tokaji, The Paperless Chase: Electronic Voting and Democratic Values, 73 FORDHAM L.
REV. 1711, 1721 (2005).

12 Electoral Law of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Law No. 78 of June 1, 2011, 16 LPRA §§ 4001-4255
(2012 & Suppl. 2015).
Machine Translated by Google

No. 4 (2016) ANALYSIS OF THE ELECTRONIC CANTALY IN PUERTO RICO 1309

and the instructions contained in the ballot. For this reason, the effort to
educate citizens about electoral regulations continues to be necessary.
In addition, education about electoral processes now has another important
component: addressing questions and fears resulting from electronic scrutiny.
Some of these are totally valid due to the distrust that is often associated with
technology; others could be due to fears that we repeat without seeking their
basis or foundation. To combat these fears and doubts, what is recommended
is to look at other countries that have implemented this system, find out how
they overcame these obstacles and do the same according to our political
reality. On the other hand, one of the biggest criticisms of electronic scrutiny
has to do with how onerous it will be to implement this system, even more if we
consider the acute fiscal and economic crisis the country is going through.
Some significant figures are:

1. Contract awarded: $38.3 million 2. For

the primaries: 5,000 machines 3. For the
general election: 6,000 machines 4. First
disbursement: $12,000 for programming 5. Second
disbursement: $8 million that the EEC had to pay before December 2015, and of which
$5.6 million was still due at the end of February 2015 6. Third disbursement: $7.2 million
on or before July 2016 7. Last payment: before the [general] election13

In light of this concern, it is worth asking ourselves if 6,000 machines are

too many for the electoral event or if Puerto Rico is currently able to cover these
expenses. However, we insist on the value of using electronic scrutiny in Puerto
Rico and we propose that in the future the possibility of making it as inexpensive
as possible be analyzed in greater depth, while also pursuing a quality system
that produces reliable results.
On the other hand, the use of electronic scrutiny in the 2016 elections is
practically imminent, but not the certainty that the Dominion Voting Systems
machines will work perfectly. For example, in the Canadian province of New
Brunswick the Dominion Voting team encountered failures that caused a manual
count to be carried out.14 The concern is valid, all the more so because “the
EEC ran into several circumstances that were not initially with tempered by the
agency in its analysis of costs and operations.”15 An example of this is that “in
Puerto Rico there was no printing press certified by Dominion

13 Rebecca Banuchi, A decade in the fight for electronic voting, EL NUEVO DÍA, http://prde cide.elnuevodia.com/
detalle/reportaje/40_una-dcada-en-la-contienda-por-el-voto-electronico /pre view/ (last visit April 6, 2016).

14 ID

15 Wilma Maldonado Arrigoitía, Electronic scrutiny uphill, EL NUEVO DÍA (April 18, 2016), http://www.elnuevodia.com/
noticias/politica/nota/cuestaarribaelescrutinioelectronico 2188401/ (last visited April 21, 2016)
Machine Translated by Google

1310 UPR LEGAL MAGAZINE Vol.85

on the specifications required for the ballot.”16 In addition, the budget

submitted by the EEC did not consider that the cost of printing would be three
times what was contemplated. Likewise, it is estimated that now there will be
726,000 additional people who will vote, compared to the last elections.17
The consequence of knowing this information with so little time left for the
primaries is that quick decisions have to be made to guarantee that there
will be enough ballots, machines, trucks to transport it, among others.18 Due
to the lack of transparency in the process of implementing electronic scrutiny
for the first time in Puerto Rico, all that remains is to wait until election day
arrives to find out how prepared is the Government for electronic scrutiny.

II. SOME ADVANTAGES OF ELECTRONIC COUNTING

Although electronic scrutiny is a novelty in the Puerto Rican political

system, it is not so in other parts of the world. For several years, many
countries have been given the task of updating their electoral systems
according to technological advances. A number of countries have incorporated
the system of electronic scrutiny or electronic voting. Although we have
already pointed out that both systems have marked differences, both the
fears related to electronic scrutiny (distrust and onerousness) and its
advantages (accuracy and speed in the results) also apply to electronic
voting, so it is useful to see how it has been implemented. the latter in other
countries. For example, Estonia is a country that is trusted by its people and
the introduction of electronic voting has been successful.19 On the other
hand, Brazil introduced the system due to its economic problems and to
avoid fraud.20 Over time, this distrust has diminished due to the gradual
implementation of the system in the country.21 The United Kingdom is
considered a world leader of great importance in the use of technology in its
electoral processes and has even used the internet in these processes.22
The vote through the Internet, for example, allowed citizens to vote a few
years ago through their personal computers through a system that required providing personalized informa

16 ID
17 id.
18 id.
19 INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR DEMOCRACY AND ELECTORAL ASSISTANCE, AN INTRODUCTION
TO ELECTRONIC VOTING: ESSENTIAL CONSIDERATIONS 19 (2011), http://www.idea.int/en/publications/
introducing-electronic-voting/loader.cfm?csModule=security /getfile&pageid=55458.
20 ID
21 Id. at p. twenty-one.
22 Toby S. James, Fewer costs, more votes? United Kingdom innovations in election administration
2000-2007 and the effect on voter turnout, 10 ELEC. LJ. 37, 44 (2011).
23 Id.
Machine Translated by Google

No. 4 (2016) ANALYSIS OF THE ELECTRONIC CANTALY IN PUERTO RICO 1311

It has not been possible to adequately measure the effects of these votes because
“[t]he effects of Internet voting are difficult to identify because other electronic
and non-electronic pilots were often run simultaneously”.24 Ironically, the United
Kingdom, after implementing the electronic voting, eliminated them because it
concluded that they did not increase electoral participation and did not provide
adequate proof to audit the process.25
Venezuela serves as an interesting example due to the strong criticism of
lack of legitimacy or corruption that it has always received, especially in electoral
events. Starting in 2004, Venezuela began to use an electronic system for its
elections. Its implementation was criticized for fear that it would be used to
manipulate the results.26 However, the attempt to gain the trust of the electorate
is not limited to Venezuela, but is also present in multiple countries.27 Even in
countries with With greater technological developments and more capital to
implement it, there is "distrust, fear and therefore rejection or caution of authorities,
specialists or pressure groups in many countries about the security, integrity and
legitimacy of the application of electronics in electoral processes ”.28 However,
despite the reasonable caution that it provokes, some of the benefits that the
system brings have also been highlighted, among them: speed, robustness, ease
of use and auditability (ability to generate trust in the technology). .29

In Venezuela, the differences between the past manual and electronic

systems have been highlighted. The manual system was used since 1941 and it
was not until 1998 that the automated one began to be used.30 For example,
with the current system there is security in the handling of information. In addition,
the Electoral Registry was constantly updated and the quality of service
increased.31 Regarding the electoral ballot, the risks in the production process
decreased and there is an automated vote registry. Regarding the voting process,
this now takes place in a reduced time, it is easier to audit and there are high
levels of data security. Finally, it is presumed that there are zero errors in the
scrutiny, the results are given in less time and an immediate adjudication is given.32
Of course, our political reality is not the same as the reality of Venezuela.
However, by applying some of the attributes mentioned to our context, we

24 ID
25 INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR DEMOCRACY AND ELECTORAL ASSISTANCE, supra note 19, at p.
29.
26 Id. at p. 19.
27 Id. at pgs. 17-29.
28 José Daniel González et al., Venezuela: The electronic vote. Audits and legitimacy of the
automated voting system, 21 ESPACIO ABIERTO 305, 306 (2012).
29 Id. at p. 307.
30 Id. at p. 309.
31 ID
32 ID
Machine Translated by Google

1312 UPR LEGAL MAGAZINE Vol.85

We notice many similarities. In the first place, the speed in the counting of votes
stands out, in comparison with the past system where the ballots were counted
manually.33 This is one of the advantages that the President of the EEC expressed
that the change to the counting system email would help. Every four years, hundreds
of people dedicate themselves to spending long hours in the schools counting vote
by vote. This has the consequence that, as has happened on many occasions, it is
9:00 pm and it is still unknown which candidate obtained the most votes. The
electronic counting system also eliminates errors in counting, which is likely to have
happened on more than one occasion if we take into account the extreme fatigue
suffered by election officials after working all day at polling stations. . This also
makes it easier to match the voting list with the ballots in the ballot box.

On the other hand, it is important to clarify that there are variations of electronic
counting.34 In Paperless Chase, the author commented on two alternatives to
electronically count the votes once the voter exercises his right and delivers his ballot.35
The first alternative, central count systems, consists of placing the ballot in a box
along with other ballots, waiting for the machine to read them all.36
On the other hand, in the second alternative, seal count systems, the ballot goes
through a first scanning process whose programming is made to notify the voter if
their ballot has any error that would prevent it from being read correctly by the
machine, resulting in their vote is not taken into consideration.37 However,

33 Id. at p. 307. On the speed and advantages of electronic canvassing, see Steve Bickerstaff, Post-
election Legal Strategy in Florida: The Anatomy of Defeat and Victory, 34 LOY. U. CHI. LJ 149, 159
(2003) (“Properly programmed counting machines are quicker and less prone to error than human
counters. Therefore, each sizeable community or jurisdiction in this country uses self-tabulating voting
equipment, such as direct recording equipment (“DRE” ) or levered voting machines, or uses punch
cards or paper ballots that can be electronically counted.For virtually all elections, the use of electronic
counting equipment is satisfactory for determining the winner of an election.Nevertheless, every man
ner of voting machine or electronic Counting system is susceptible to error.Some machine-counted
ballots clearly indicating a voter's intent to cast a vote for a particular candidate are erroneously left
uncounted by the counting equipment.In those rare instances in which these uncounted ballots may be
determinative of the winner of an election, the manual review and hand-counting of the uncounted
ballots are the best means of accurately determining the outcome of the election.”) (footnote omitted).
34 According to Jason Kitcat, there are different types of electronic scrutiny:
1. Direct Recording Electronic (DRE) voting which consists of kiosk-type hardware in the
polling station.
2. Remote Electronic Voting in which voters use computers at work or home to mark an
'electronic ballot' and return it over the Internet to a central server.

3. Electronic Counting in which the vote is marked on a paper or card ballot and which is
then counted by opto-electrical hardware.
Jason Kitcat, Government and ICT standards: An Electronic Voting Case Study, 2(1) J. INF. COMMUN.
ETHICS SOC. 143, 150 (2004).

35 Tokaji, supra note 11.

36 ID
37 Id.
Machine Translated by Google

No. 4 (2016) ANALYSIS OF THE ELECTRONIC CANTALY IN PUERTO RICO 1313

the voter is given the power to correct it. According to the comments made by the
President of the EWC, it can be understood that the seal count system
It will be the alternative to be used in Puerto Rico. However, this is not yet
confirmed and, in turn, brings other concerns; Among them, how will it be
guaranteed that the system to be implemented will comply with electoral regulations
and all the requirements that make this process a democratic one.
Finally, we would like to highlight the advantages of electronic scrutiny in the
context of Puerto Rico and the 2016 elections. First, we must highlight how frequent
voter fraud has been in Puerto Rico; we can even classify that it has been
normalized. A common illegal practice is list dumping, whereby election officials
forge the signatures of voters who did not attend the polls and fill out unused
ballots.38 While electronic counting cannot completely eliminate these practices, it
can You can reduce your probabilities, since the probabilities usually occur during
the manual counting of the votes. Other authors have also reached this conclusion
and have maintained: "Once electronic scrutiny is implemented, the famous
'emptying of lists' can be avoided, which can occur once the polling station closes
and polling station officials remain in the complicity of loneliness with the lists of
voters and the electoral ballot boxes.”39

Second, new petition parties and independent candidates may face problems
in finding all of their election officials for each polling place. In a manual canvass,
the presence of election officials is essential to ensure that no one damages or
fails to count a candidate's ballot. In electronic counting, particularly now that it is
being implemented for the first time, the presence of officials continues to be
important, but since the votes are counted by the same device, the probability of
them being altered is reduced. In this way, we see that electronic scrutiny facilitates
the entry of new actors into the electoral game and even that of those candidates
within a majority political party, but who do not have the support of an electoral
structure.

Finally, we must reiterate the ignorance that many voters have of how to vote
properly and how this could affect who is elected. It is well known that voters
constantly make mistakes when exercising their right to vote. Among these errors
we can find, for example: that they vote for more than one candidate -particularly in
the legislative ballot-, that they cast their vote in the wrong area or that it is not very
clear for which candidate they are voting. For example, in the elections for the
position of senator by accumulation

38 As recently as December 2014, two electoral officials pleaded guilty to this crime, see Daniel
Rivera Vargas, Two accused of electoral fraud in Villalba plead guilty, PRIMERA HORA (December
14, 2014), http://www .primerahora.com/noticias/policia-tribunales/nota/
sedeclaranculpablesdosimputadosdefraudeelectoralenvillalba-1053513/ (last visited April 21, 2016).

39 Ramón L. Rosario Cortés & Carlo E. Zayaz Morales, The electoral primaries of 2012: A study
on the new challenges and trends in Electoral Law in Puerto Rico, 51 REV. RIGHT. PR 251, 259-60
(2012).
Machine Translated by Google

1314 UPR LEGAL MAGAZINE Vol.85

in 2012 there were a total of 9,293 ballots that were declared invalid.40 The
person who obtained the eleventh most votes, and was elected to the last
senator seat by accumulation, obtained 125,251 votes, while the next two –
from his own party- obtained 124,450 and 122,171.41 Although it is impossible
to know for what reasons these ballots were declared invalid, it could be
argued that these ballots would have made a difference if the voters had been
able to correct their mistakes. The electronic counting machines known as the
precinct count system allow precisely this, since they notify the voter of the
error made on the ballot and they are allowed to vote again. Ballots that at
some point would have been declared invalid can now be modified by the
voter so that they can properly choose the candidate of their choice. Thus, in
closed elections, at the municipal or state level, electronic scrutiny could have
a substantial impact on the determination of who is elected, since a percentage
of the ballots that were previously declared invalid will now count for a
candidate. Although education about electoral processes must be strengthened
so that citizens can vote effectively, through electronic scrutiny we can ensure
that each vote counts and they are not lost due to ignorance or omission of
the voter. In this way, we understand that electronic scrutiny makes it easier
for each citizen to validly participate in the electoral process and vindicate
their right to vote.
Having carried out a comparative analysis and discussed its particularities,
it is appropriate to mention some advantages associated with the use of
electronic scrutiny:

1. Greater precision in the results, since the possibility of human error is excluded 2. Greater speed in
voting, counting
and tabulation 3. Efficiency in the management of complicated
electoral systems that require laborious counting procedures 4. Prevention of fraud in polling stations
and during the transmission and tabulation of
results, by reducing human intervention 5. Potential long-term savings due to hours worked by polling
station staff, and reduction in production and distribution costs of the ballots.42

40 GENERAL ELECTION 2012 AND CONSULTATION ON THE POLITICAL STATUS OF PUERTO RICO,
SENATORS BY CUMULATION: ISLA RESULTS , http://64.185.222.182/REYDI_Escrutinio12/index.html#es/pic_
bar_list/SENADORES_POR_ACUMULACION_ISLA.xml (last visited April 21, 2016).
41 ID
42 INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR DEMOCRACY AND ELECTORAL ASSISTANCE, supra note 19, at p.
8.
Machine Translated by Google

No. 4 (2016) ANALYSIS OF ELECTRONIC CANTALY IN PUERTO RICO 1315

III. SOME DISADVANTAGES OF ELECTRONIC COUNTING

Like any new process that begins to be implemented, there are fears,
challenges and uncertainties that have to be overcome. The first of these is
the general distrust that the people have of the electoral system. The root of
this problem makes it much bigger when taking into consideration the
conservative mentality and resistance to change that characterizes Puerto
Rican society. On the other hand, in Venezuela, for example, the risk has
been raised that the electronic counting machines are the object of software
or hackers that call into question the transparency of the process.43 In turn,
this has the consequence that the vote of the voter is not respected. To this
argument we could answer that this lack of transparency is a present fear
even with the manual system in Puerto Rico. Unlike a hacker who can
reconfigure the machine to be used, polling stations have people who, if they
wanted to, could alter the number of ballots counted or the votes on them.
Other of the most common disadvantages are: less transparency,
increase in the magnitude of error and fraud, and the lack of security
control.44 Each of these must be addressed to guarantee confidence in the
operating system of a machine in light of of the political realities of each
country. For example, the United States has highlighted the importance of
paper ballots and how they have been used by past generations to detect
fraud and error.45 It remains to be seen whether future generations will adopt
the mindset of past generations to the reliability that they can grant to the new system.
In a more hopeful tone, Margaret Ramírez Báez described in
Mechanization of Voting and Electronic Scrutiny in Puerto Rico how the
electronic voting and electronic scrutiny mechanism has worked internationally
over time.46 For example, in Brazil the electronic voting in the 2002 elections
and the speed with which the results were transmitted caused voter confidence
in these electronic processes.47 However, this was not the case in the
Netherlands, where after registering security errors in the system “officially
announced in 2008 that it would desist from the use of electronic systems

43 Id. at p. 311.
44 Michael A. Carrier, Vote Counting, Technology, and Unintended Consequences, 79 ST. JOHN'S L.
REV. 645, 646-47 (2005).
45 Id. at p. 686 (“Voters in previous generations at least could witness boxes of paper ballots suddenly
materializing and could know the magnitude of the fraud based on the number of suspicious ballots. Today's
software, in contrast, is characterized by a lack of transparency, an inability to prevent vote switching and
the deletion of evidence of tampering, and a far-reaching scope due to the removal of physical components
of the vote count”.).
46 Margaret Ramírez Báez, Voting Mechanization and Electronic Scrutiny in Puerto Rico, 50 REV.
RIGHT. PR 217, 225 (2011).

47 Id. at p. 225.
Machine Translated by Google

1316 UPR LEGAL MAGAZINE Vol.85

for the exercise of suffrage.”48 In the Dominican Republic, a system was

implemented that, according to Ramírez, “is not reliable, since it constitutes a
violation or apparent violation of the constitutional guarantee that the vote is cast
secretly. This is by virtue of the fact that the machine requests to identify the voter,
in order to later allow him to exercise his vote.”49
The experiences of other countries lead us to one of the main fears that arise
from using this system: the confidentiality of the vote. For now, the system to be
implemented soon differs from the Venezuelan system, since the machine will not
contain voter information, such as fingerprints. In the case of Puerto Rico, voters
will use special ballots, whose votes will be read by the optical lens of a special
machine. However, several questions remain to be answered. How are you going
to ensure the confidentiality of the vote of those who have disabilities (such as -for
example- the blind community of Puerto Rico)? To what extent is the vote kept
confidential if when it is going to be read by the machine to determine if it does
not have errors, it reports an inconsistency with it? Does the clerk have an
opportunity to review the voter's ballot to tell them what they did wrong? Or is it
only the machine that will identify the error and the ballot will be returned to the
voter so that he can correct the error that he may not know how to identify?

Both scenarios have problems but it is essential to identify these inconsistencies

before the day the electronic counting system is to be used for the first time.

However, for these and other fears that cause mistrust in the system,50 there
are mechanisms that -if implemented correctly- can put aside the uncertainty
created by them. In other words, although these mechanisms or processes do not
eliminate such mistrust in general, they can reduce it considerably. An example
of this is audits. However, in Puerto Rico these raise many questions that have
not yet been answered: Who will be in charge of the audits? Is it up to the
government itself or to the company that created the machines? How will audits
be monitored? Will it have the approval of officials representing the country's main
parties?
Will independent candidates join these? The truth is that the issue of audits
creates more doubts than answers, because until the system is implemented we
will not know what are the failures that have to be monitored.
On the other hand, it is essential to remember that everything related to the
preparation for the implementation of this system entails expenses. The cost of
having an electronic scrutiny system has its setbacks and -in the case of Puerto
Rico- it is a basic factor to consider. We live in the middle of a

48 Id. at p. 227.
49 Id. at p. 224.
50 For a discussion of some of the fears e-voting has brought to the United States, see Daniel
P. Tokaji, Early Returns on Election Reform: Discretion, Disenfranchisement, and the Help
America Vote Act, 73 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 1206, 1241 (2005).
Machine Translated by Google

No. 4 (2016) ANALYSIS OF THE ELECTRONIC CANTALY IN PUERTO RICO 1317

crisis that we can compare with an endless tunnel. High cost results in limiting
the number of optical lens machines, which in turn could cause a reduction in
polling stations. This, indirectly, would cause a negative effect on the
democratic participation of citizens to exercise their constitutional right to vote.
The high cost is not limited only to the machines, but also to the special ballots
that must be read by optical lens machines.

Despite the aforementioned disadvantages, we support the convenience

of electronic scrutiny in Puerto Rico. Beyond being currently a legal reality, we
understand that the advantages of electronic scrutiny outweigh its
disadvantages, particularly due to the speed with which votes can be counted
and the possibility that the system presents that citizens will be able to correct
their votes and vindicate their constitutional right. However, we recognize that
there are complications that go beyond the usual drawbacks looming globally.
In other words, the impact of said disadvantages will depend on the way in
which the system is adopted in Puerto Rico, the preparation of the EEC for
said implementation, and the training received by the officials who will be in
charge of the electoral process. As a summary, some of its disadvantages
are:

1. Risk of manipulation by internal personnel with privileged access to the system, or by

hackers from outside the system 2. Need to carry
out more campaigns to educate voters 3. Increase in costs for the purchase
and maintenance of the voting system electronic

4. Possibility of fraud due to large-scale manipulation by a small staff with access to

privileged information 5. Increased security requirements
to protect the voting system during and between elections, including during transport,
storage and maintenance.51

IV. POSSIBLE IMPLICATIONS OF ELECTRONIC COUNTING

Having already discussed the advantages and disadvantages of electronic

scrutiny from a comparative perspective, it is now up to us to question what
are some of the implications of electronic scrutiny in Puerto Rican electoral law.
First, we will discuss the case of Suárez Cáceres v. CEE with the purpose of
asking us the relationship between the electronic scrutiny and the blank vote.
As we will see in the discussion, through electronic scrutiny the voter will be
allowed to correct said ballot that was left blank. However, we will maintain
that said exercise must be recognized as valid and we suggest how the
electronic scrutiny should address the matter. Second, through the discussion
of Santini Gaudier v. CEE we will see the importance that

51 González et al., supra note 28, at p. 309.

Machine Translated by Google

1318 UPR LEGAL MAGAZINE Vol.85

keep knowing all the details about the electronic scrutiny and how the knowledge
we have of it could affect how efficiently it is applied in Puerto Rico. Finally, we
will analyze how the preferential voting system could be made viable in Puerto
Rico through electronic scrutiny.

A. Rethinking Suárez Cáceres v. State Election Commission

Suppose the system has already been implemented in Puerto Rico.

Imagine that a group of people -as usual- decides to go to the school where it is
their turn to vote, they line up, register, take the ballot paper in their hands and
decide to leave one of the spaces blank. They want to express that they
disagree with the available candidates, so they do not choose any candidate.
One of these, when leaving the voting booth and inserting the ballot into the
machine, receives a notification that they have made a mistake. The expression
of refraining from choosing a candidate will not be counted for the effect of the
final votes. The machine responds in such a way because it is systematized to
function in accordance with what is permitted by our electoral law.
The Constitution of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, specifically in the
Bill of Rights, expresses the right of citizens to exercise their right to vote.52
However, this expression does not conceive that the citizen has the obligation
to choose a candidate. In other words, we understand that the action of going
to the polling station, entering the booth with the ballots and deciding to leave
blank spaces, is an expression that deserves to be taken into consideration
when counting all the votes. In Suárez Cáceres v. CEE, the constitutionality of
a resolution of the CEE was attacked, which provided that blank, protested,
invalid ballots, and those filled with fictitious characters, would not be considered
when counting the votes.53 Due to the results of the In the 2008 General
Election, the Supreme Court had to answer what effect a blank ballot has for
purposes of determining who gets the last Senate seat under the Minority Act.
In a controversial opinion,54
The Supreme Court upheld the CEE resolution and concluded that only the
vote of voters “whose clear and unequivocal intention was to vote for one of the
candidates or proposals presented on the ballot” would be recognized.55
It is ironic that the Court has proclaimed itself “the final guardian and
interpreter of our Constitution and the principles and values it embodies”,56
while at the same time infringing on the constitutional right of all

52 CONST. PR art. II, § 2.

53 Suárez Cáceres v. EEC, 176 DPR 31, 38 (2009).
54 See Ricardo Martínez Espinosa, Reasons for the blank vote, in SEVENTH POLITICAL ESSAY
CONTEST 125 (2007); see also José J. Álvarez González & Carlos Baralt Suárez, Constitutional Law,
79 REV. JUR. UPR 609, 643-44 (2010) (in favor of counting blank votes).
55 Suárez Cáceres, 176 DPR on p. 73.
56 Id. at p. 38.
Machine Translated by Google

No. 4 (2016) ANALYSIS OF THE ELECTRONIC CANTALY IN PUERTO RICO 1319

citizen to vote.57 The Court did not take into account that voting is much more
than putting an X in a delimited space. Voting includes making a judgment
about the candidates and deciding not to select any. Electoral abstentionism
is a valid way of voting and deserves to be respected by our electoral law.
However, the Court chose to say that the purpose of an election is to vote
clearly and unequivocally for officials seeking public office.
Isn't refraining from selecting a candidate a clear and unequivocal message
of disgust with the options before a voter? Don't those who went to the polls to
vote deserve to be heard?
The Court indicated that: “[t]he right to vote and free expression . . . they
guarantee the voter's right to express himself and vote for what he believes.
It should not be used to be counted –either for or against any candidate or
option if its intention has clearly been the opposite.”58 What does it mean for
a voter to vote for what they believe? Doesn't going to the polls include the
fact that a voter lets the government know that they don't support any
candidate, that they got tired of voting for the same people, that they no longer
support a party even though they probably voted for them? four years ago?
The dissenting opinions mention some points that are worth sharing. In his
dissenting opinion, Judge Hernández Denton maintains that the majority
decision "subverts the basic principle that every vote cast at the polls must be
counted" and "disrupts the most basic democratic values on which our society
is nourished." .59 From this perspective, the assumption that we propose -and
which must be incorporated into our electoral law so that it is included in the
electronic scrutiny- is that the blank vote be recognized as a valid political
expression and worthy of being taken. into account when counting the number
of votes that a candidate received or failed to receive.
In Suárez Cáceres v. CEE, the Supreme Court rejected the blank vote as
a valid political expression. Its relationship with electronic scrutiny raises the
following questions: How will said expression be dealt with when the electronic
scrutiny system counts said votes? Will the ballot be returned to the voter to
vote “correctly”? Will the voter be able to cast the blank ballot after entering it
a certain number of times? Through electronic scrutiny, a voter who by
omission has not voted for any candidate will have a second turn at bat.
Although we consider this return valuable, it is problematic that a voter who
intends to do so cannot validly vote blank and that said exercise is considered
an error. For this reason, we understand that it is necessary to amend our
electoral law so that said vote is

57 The text of our Constitution says: "[t]he laws will guarantee the expression of the will of the people
through universal, equal, direct and secret suffrage, and will protect the citizen against any coercion in the
exercise of the electoral prerogative." Id. on p. 70 (quoting CONST. PR art. II, § 2).
This includes, in our judgment, voting and leaving one or more spaces on the ballot blank, instead of
selecting one or more than one candidate.

58 Id. (emphasis supplied).

59 Id. at p. 93 (Hernández Denton, dissenting opinion).
Machine Translated by Google

1320 UPR LEGAL MAGAZINE Vol.85

counted. If the law is amended and the blank ballot is considered valid, how would
electronic counting deal with blank ballots? How do you distinguish between
someone who votes blank by omission and someone who votes blank on purpose?

We recommend that the corresponding regulations be adopted so that the voter

who votes blank is notified that he is exercising his vote in that way and that he will
be counted in this way if he reinserts the ballot. In this way, we managed to balance
both interests; that no vote is lost and that blank votes are counted.

B. The importance of Santini Gaudier v. EEC

Another important case to discuss is Santini Gaudier v. CEE.60 In this case,

you can see the real importance of knowing the machines to be used, the process
to follow when implementing it and its safeguards. It serves, then, to reiterate the
negative consequences of putting into force a new technological mechanism
without guiding the public on the details of its operation and reliability.

The facts of this case begin on January 25, 2012, when Mr. Luis Ricardo
Santini Gaudier filed a preliminary and permanent appeal against the EEC and the
Electoral Commissioners of each of the political parties. Santini Gaudier argued that
the CEE had failed to comply with the requirements to implement the electronic vote
counting system set forth in Law 78-2011, better known as the Puerto Rico Electoral
Code for the 21st Century (hereinafter, “Electoral Code”).61 Specifically, it alleged
failure to disclose the resolutions of the EEC on electronic scrutiny in the Permanent
Registration Boards and in newspapers of general circulation during the term
established by law, as well as failure to notify political parties and candidates
regarding the system. Hence, Santini Gaudier maintained that the EEC had failed in
its duty to notify and inform the public about the electronic ballot system within a
term of twelve months prior to the holding of the elections.62 In addition, Santini
Gaudier argued that it would be impossible for the CEE to comply with these duties
on time because at the time of the lawsuit the CEE had not initiated guidelines on
the system, the machines or the procedures to be followed.63

60 Santini Gaudier v. EEC, 185 DPR 522 (2012).

61 Id. at p. 523. Given that Santini Gaudier was a candidate in the PPD Primaries, he stated that the
EEC's failure to comply with the provisions of the Electoral Code generated an "environment of
uncertainty" regarding the electronic scrutiny that affected him as a candidate and that, if he did not If the
injunction is granted, it would suffer irreparable damage. Id at 524.
62 Id. at p. 524.
63 Id. at p. 527.
Machine Translated by Google

No. 4 (2016) ANALYSIS OF THE ELECTRONIC CANTALY IN PUERTO RICO 1321

The Court of First Instance determined that, in effect, the EEC had failed to
comply with article 3,015 of the Electoral Code, as stated by Santini Gaudier, for
which reason it granted the preliminary and permanent injunction , ordering the
EEC to desist from the implementation of the electronic scrutiny.64 However, the
Supreme Court accepted the appeal for certification presented by the EEC to
review said ruling.65
The Court, for its part, understood that the CEE had complied with the duties
provided by law through its resolution CEE-RS 11-174, through which it published
in two newspapers of general circulation that:

(1) voting would continue[d] by a mark on a paper ballot; (2) the votes would be counted
using an optical reader and the ballots would be deposited in a ballot box; (3) the vote
would take place through direct interaction of the voter with the electronic machine; (4) the
system would guarantee[d] that the vote is private and independent so that each vote
counts the way it was cast; (5) the system would notify the voter if they cast a valid ballot
and offer the opportunity to correct any errors that might invalidate it; (6) the ballots [would]
be deposited in a ballot box attached to the machine to protect them as verifiable evidence
in case of manual counting or counting; (7) the EEC would promulgate[d] the necessary
regulations to carry out a massive education program and orientation campaign directed
at voters on the electronic vote counting system at least six months before the general
elections. 66

Using said resolution as an example, the Supreme Court considered that the
EEC had complied with its duty of notification and information, and therefore
revoked the decision of the Court of First Instance. However, associate judge
Rodríguez Rodríguez mentioned several details that were not yet known and that
did not emerge from the resolution on which the majority relied, including:

1. The company contracted to carry out the electronic scrutiny.

2. The type of machines that [would] be used: “central-count optical scan” or “precint-count
optical scan”.
3. The software or system that the machines would use.
4. Details about the probability of manipulation of the information registered in the machine.

5. The percentage of margin of error of the scrutiny.

6. The voting procedure for people with special needs (with disabilities).

7. The aid that [would] be provided to elderly people who find the process difficult;

64 Id. at p. 525.
65 Electoral Code of Puerto Rico for the XXI Century, Law No. 78 of June 1, 2011, 2011 LPR
1446.
66 Santini Gaudier, 185 DPR at p. 541.
Machine Translated by Google

1322 UPR LEGAL MAGAZINE Vol.85

8. The way to electronically scrutinize the votes by direct nomination (write-in).

9. The way in which the scrutiny would be carried out in those cases of absentee votes
and early votes. . . .
10. How absentee voters could correct errors on their ballots, if they can. . . .67

We agree with Judge Rodríguez on the importance of disclosing all these

details when implementing such a far-reaching change to the electoral
system. As in 2012, to date, the Government has said very little to the public
about the implementation of electronic scrutiny for the 2016 Elections. Of the
list described above, we are only aware that Dominion Voting Systems is the
company contracted to carry out the electronic scrutiny.
However, we still do not know the following: what measures will be taken to
ensure the right to vote for citizens with disabilities; if there will be drills or
other opportunities for voters to learn how the machines work; if citizens will
have the alternative of seeing the machines that will count their votes; if they
will have access to information on how the process will be carried out, or if
they will know how the confidentiality of the process will be maintained while
ensuring the counting of votes in the case of, for example, voters with
disabilities.
For these reasons, we must ask ourselves how the current disinformation
differs from that which led Santini Gaudier to file his lawsuit. The most recent
information available to us is that on Thursday, April 21, 2016, the Committee
on Government, Government Efficiency, and Economic Innovation of the
Senate of Puerto Rico summoned the President of the EEC, Liza García
Vélez, and the electoral commissioners of the four registered parties to
explain how electronic scrutiny would be implemented in this year's primaries.68
Despite the fact that the Court has considered the information and notification
duties of the EEC in Santini Gaudier satisfied, we consider valid the
statements made then regarding the uncertainty of electronic scrutiny and
specified by Judge Rodríguez in her dissenting opinion. In our view, the story
of uncertainty has been repeated in the 2016 electoral period, with the
difference that on this occasion a lawsuit has not been filed. One wonders if
this is due to a greater reception of the electronic scrutiny proposal after
several years of public discussion on the matter or to the precedent of Santini
Gaudier, which may discourage anyone's hopes of prevailing in court with a
similar argument. to that made in 2012.

67 Id. at p. 565-66 (notes omitted).

68 Sarah Vázquez, Elecciones van con el escrutinio electronico, METRO (April 21, 2016),
http://www.metro.pr/noticias/elecciones-van-con-el-escrutinio-electronico/pGXpdu!
C5vpZUvE gQlw/ ( last visit April 21, 2016).
Machine Translated by Google

No. 4 (2016) ANALYSIS OF ELECTRONIC CANTALY IN PUERTO RICO 1323

C. Preferential Voting: A viable proposal?

Through the preferential vote, a voter ranks the candidates in order of

preference and, for a candidate to be elected, he must obtain an absolute
majority.69 If in the first round of counting no candidate obtained an absolute
majority, the second option selected by the voter who obtained the least
number of votes and so on until a candidate obtains an absolute majority. In
two articles published in this issue, the acceptance of preferential voting in
Puerto Rico is recommended.70 We echo what is proposed in these articles
and, in turn, we maintain that electronic scrutiny enables the implementation
of preferential voting in Puerto Rico. In order for the preferential vote to be
validly carried out, great confidence in the scrutiny of the votes is required. If
it were done manually, one would have to trust that the order in which the
candidates are chosen is not manipulated. On the other hand, when the votes
are counted by rounds, the calculation of who obtained the absolute majority
becomes more complicated. Through electronic scrutiny, this preferential
voting system can be implemented in Puerto Rico in a way that is reliable for
the Puerto Rican electorate, since the responsibility of counting the votes
does not fall on the officials of the electoral colleges. In turn, the votes would
be counted much faster, since, as we already mentioned, the preferential vote
requires that the votes be counted in rounds and through electronic scrutiny
said counting would be done automatically.

RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS

Every four years, we go to the polls to exercise our right to vote. This
year we will have the electronic scrutiny mechanism that improves the way
citizens express themselves, ensuring that their vote is counted and warning
of possible errors that could invalidate their vote. We reiterate that the
acceptance of this system is beneficial for our democracy. However, some
of the questions that still arise in the midst of analyzing this transcendental
change for Puerto Rican politics are: how will it be used in Puerto Rico? Do
we have sufficient resources to meet expectations?

69 For an extensive discussion of this voting mechanism, its advantages, and possible consequences
in Puerto Rico, see Amaury Boscio, The Effects of Electoral Mechanics: The Purview of Preferential
Voting for Democratic Regeneration in Puerto Rico, 85 REV. JUR. UPR 897 (2016); see also Benjamin
Reilly, The Global Spread of Preferential Voting: Australian Institutional Imperialism?,
39 AUST. J. POL. ICS. 255 (2004); Alberto Bullard, Votar o botar, EL COMERCIO (November 14,
2015), http://elcomercio.pe/opinion/columnistas/votar-botar-alfredo-bullard-noticia-1856038 (last visited
March 14, 2016); CARMEN ORTEGA VILLODRES, PREFERENCE VOTING SYSTEMS AND THEIR
IMPACT ON THE PERSONALIZATION OF POLITICS 9 (2006), http://www.cses.org/plancom/
2006Seville/Ortega2006.pdf.
70 Boscius, supra note 69; Diego R. Puello Álvarez, X-ray of Article IV à la Winston Churchill, 85
REV. JUR. UPR 1069 (2016)
Machine Translated by Google

1324 UPR LEGAL MAGAZINE Vol.85

What do the people of Puerto Rico have regarding the electronic system
process? And if we do not have it, how will such resources be acquired? That
last part of the question is crucial, due to the serious economic situation facing
the Government of Puerto Rico.
The arrival of this system to our electoral process marks a new stage in
Puerto Rican politics. With this, new perspectives and controversies to be
resolved are outlined. Today we are analyzing the implementation of electronic
voting and in the not too distant future we will be discussing the benefits and
costs of electronic voting. However, we now have to recognize the importance
that education plays for the current stage of said process to be successful. To
this end, we recommend: (1) training officials to supervise the process; (2)
create a plan to prevent fraud; (3) conduct drills and practices; (4) create a
manual of instructions and process, and (5) organize multisectoral meetings for
the creation of said manual and the reception of other ideas regarding the
implementation of electronic scrutiny.
First of all, we recommend the training of officials to guarantee that the
process complies with all the requirements that the law requires. The training
should prepare them for all possible scenarios, including an action plan in case
fraud is detected. This brings us to our second recommendation, the creation
of a plan to prevent fraud in the electoral process. Considering that it is a
technology-based system, a plan like this is vital to control the situation, should
it occur, and promote citizen confidence in the elections. Likewise, we
understand that a massive orientation towards citizenship is vital, emphasizing
young people who are going to exercise their right to vote for the first time and
in the elderly community, which must face more difficulties than any other group
in understanding the electronic scrutiny process.

Like any new process, it is vital to conduct drills and practice prior to the
event. We propose that these take place well in advance of General Election
Day. It is essential that citizens know the machines that will read their votes. In
the past, thousands of ballots have been annulled because voters made
incorrect or off-box marks. What assures us that with the new ballots the same
thing that has always happened will not happen? These drills have two
purposes: the first is to test the system and calculate the time it would take to
know the final results, and the second is to identify failures and possible
problems that may arise. Regarding the second reason, the identification of
failures would allow them to be prevented and, of course, seek solutions or
alternatives. If a problem or inconsistency is found, where do you turn? Who is
asked for help? These are some of the doubts that arise and cannot be
answered yet.
After carrying out the necessary training and sufficient tests, we
propose the creation of an instruction manual that details the step by step of
the process. The manual must be available to the public and explain how votes
are counted, thus demonstrating the transparency of the system. Regarding
the drafting of said manual, we suggest that different sectors of the
Machine Translated by Google

No. 4 (2016) ANALYSIS OF ELECTRONIC CANTALY IN PUERTO RICO 1325

society. Among these should be found: connoisseurs of the electoral process,

academic experts on democracy issues and external resources who have had
experience with the operation of the electronic voting system in other countries.
Another additional purpose of these meetings is to bring new ideas to the
table, suggestions to improve the process and share knowledge to implement
the new changes. We make these recommendations with the intention that
they will be accepted in the 2016 General Elections, but if they are not -and
the implementation of electronic scrutiny is problematic- we can return to them
or others that are articulated in order to continue improving the implementation
of the system. .
On the other hand, electronic scrutiny brings with it other possibilities. For
example, the preferential voting system is an option that, if incorporated into
the Constitution, could be implemented through electronic scrutiny and address
the historical problem of closed bipartisanship. We recognize that the
preferential voting system is subject to question, particularly with respect to the
efficiency and confidence with which such votes will be counted. However,
through electronic scrutiny, said system can be implemented more efficiently,
thus ensuring that citizens trust the process and that the votes are counted
promptly.
Finally, we reiterate the central role that electronic scrutiny has in
guaranteeing the right to vote and democratic participation. In a country where,
as the aforementioned examples illustrate, citizens are accustomed to making
mistakes on their ballots, the implementation of an electronic system favors
the exercise of democracy. The risk of fraud is also lessened with electronic
scrutiny. This, in turn, facilitates the entry of petition parties and independent
candidates, who do not always have electoral officials for all polling stations.

Technology, if applied correctly, can bring more benefits than advantages.

In this article we have commented on the advantages that the implementation
of electronic scrutiny would bring, even more so in light of our political reality.
Other areas in which technology will have an effect will be discussed in the
future, such as its use to enable a participatory democracy. However, we
should not underestimate the importance of the reception in Puerto Rico of
electronic scrutiny, since it is certainly a step towards democratic modernization.