Disappointment at the Counting Centre of Academic Council elections of DU

I sat through the AC counting this time. I had memories of this complex counting process when I had contested for AC elections in 1996 and 1998. This extremely mathematical and highly scientific process takes around three complete days and the University hosts this important event by offering breakfasts, lunches and regular snack breaks to the staff, the candidates and their selected supporters. The entire event is managed like a festival and candidates and their supporters go through several emotional and sentimental highs and lows during this three-day counting process. It resembles like a three-day cricket test. The counting officers close the process in the evening daily irrespective of the heightened interest that eventually gets built up during the entire day of counting. Candidates lose their sleep in between the days and come early at the counting centre to discover the destiny locked in the ballots. Counting of preferential voting has the potential to throw surprises just like one expects it in the slog-overs of a cricket match. Distribution of surplus votes combined with the process of elimination has scripted many excited stories over the years and that keeps the excitement alive within each one of those who attend this event. On the other hand, the process is too tiring. It emotionally exhausts some of those candidates who unfortunately fail to make it in the end.

However, I was completely disappointed to witness that in this age of computers, this painstaking counting process is being followed in exactly the same way as it was done in 1996 and even before that. University seems to have refused to modernize the event in order to simplify this cumbersome and extremely tiring process. One may think of making an attempt to replace the ballot-box voting system by customized EVM machines especially designed to serve our purpose. Understandably, this switch over would require a sustained effort with a clear vision by those who matter as this would require the University to engage a hardware developing company. However, even pending this, I see absolutely no reason for not using a computer at least for the purpose of calculations. One can easily use Microsoft Excel Sheets to eliminate the time that is unnecessarily spent in calculating votes of each candidate after each round of passing on the ballots from the tray of one candidate to another. Additionally, this would also ensure that there would be no errors in the calculations. When one can do these calculations with a click of the mouse it was disappointing to see the counting officers working almost manually. An Excel Sheet showing a row for each of the candidates would require only an entry to be done for the number of ballots that one received in a particular round and the value of those votes along with the updated votes of the candidate would show itself almost instantaneously in another column. A large screen display inside and outside the counting center can be provided to make the process as transparent and as efficient as possible. Candidates will then not be required to note down the entries of each round as these data can be uploaded on the university website in the end so that everyone would be able to inspect and verify these.

The manner, in which the counting is executed, unfortunately provides ample scope for mistakes and lapses. To plug these, one must switch to automated processes. Voting through OMR sheets could be one such option that should be explored as this can ensure zero mistakes in reading the preferences. At present this is done completely manually and I am sure that such a process has a ‘real’ chance of throwing up different counts if it is repeated to verify the entries. This would also be much easier and less costlier than thinking of developing customized EVM machines.

It only underlines the inertia with which this University refuses to modernize itself and this particular case works only as a sample. I can list out several such instances where use of computers and LAN-WAN networks, that are already otherwise available with the university, can simplify processes that are still being done manually. Nobody can deny that such a switch over from manual to automated processes will not only increase the efficiency but will also encourage the all important transparency in the system that is often seen missing in the college and university administration. For example, I fail to understand why a uniform accounting software is not being implemented in the colleges by the university as this will make auditing of accounts very easy and will eventually help in implementing policies uniformly in the entire university.