Election chaos: The problem is human, not technological

Each subsequent election campaign in our country is faced with the same paradox again and again: supposedly modernization, supposedly technologies, supposedly solutions, and in the end the result is more doubts, more scandals and even less trust. The machines were turned into printers, paper ballots returned with a bang, scanning devices are introduced and canceled, and society is flooded with explanations of how “this way it will be safer“. However, the real problem is not in the machines, printers or paper at all. The problem is the human factor.

No matter how many devices are installed in the polling stations, in the end someone counts, someone fills out protocols, someone adds, crosses out or "corrects". This is where the errors, tension and doubts arise. It is not the machine that messes up the numbers, but the person who does not understand how to work with it or who consciously decides to "help" the result. That is why all technical disputes often seem like a convenient distraction from the real problem.

This is especially clear in mayoral elections and preferential voting. There, the complexity of counting increases enormously. Ballots with preferential votes, different lists, different rules - all this increases the risk of errors. It is no coincidence that it is during these elections that the most invalid ballots appear, the most corrections to the protocols and the most subsequent legal disputes occur. In contrast, in elections without preferences and with a simpler structure, the number of errors is significantly lower. This is not an opinion, but an observable practice.

Even more serious is the problem with the lack of representatives of all parties in the sectional election commissions. In many sections, members or advocates of certain political forces are actually absent. This creates an imbalance, a feeling of lack of control and the possibility for decisions to be made by a limited circle of people, often under pressure and in the late hours of the night. When there is no mutual observation, suspicions are inevitable - even if there are no real abuses.

And here the logical question arises: why don't the parties provide themselves with people? If the elections are so important, if the result is fateful, why aren't efforts made for training, motivation and presence in the sections? The truth is inconvenient - this requires resources, organization and responsibility. It is easier after election day to explain how the system is flawed, how the machines are to blame, or how the ballots are problematic.

As long as the focus remains on “what device to use“, and not on “who counts and how“, nothing substantial will change. Neither machines nor paper are a panacea. The only real solution is well-prepared, sufficient and equal people in the electoral process, clear rules and less unnecessary complexity. Everything else is technical details, behind which the real deficiencies of the system are conveniently hidden.

And until this is realized, every subsequent election night will end in the same way - with fatigue, chaos, mutual accusations and the feeling that the problem is again “somewhere else“, but not where it actually is.