The transparency of the process is more important than the speed of the numbers. The limitations of verification, hidden behind the speed of vote counting machines and statistics, breed distrust. Hani Ilbo Graphics

Numbers are Transparent, but the Truth is Hidden

Elections are the heart of democracy. Yet, distrust and suspicion arise without fail after every election. Vote counting broadcasts pour out numbers in real-time, but there is little that the public can directly verify. Ballots are placed in safes, and electronic records are inaccessible to anyone but experts. The numbers are disclosed transparently, but the path to verifying the truth is obscured.

South Korea's electoral system superficially boasts the fastest and most transparent system in the world. The National Election Commission publicly discloses real-time vote counting status, and everyone can check the voter turnout and vote counts by region. However, the path for the public to directly verify the process and its results is blocked. The movement of ballot boxes to the counting stations, the process of entering data into the electronic system, and how ballots are stored after counting are areas inaccessible to the public. Even if recounts are allowed, there is no mechanism to simultaneously examine the authenticity of the votes and the security of the programs. The gap between the apparent statistical transparency and the impossibility of actual verification is the root of distrust.

Electronic vote counting machines, introduced in the 2002 local elections, dramatically increased speed. However, how these machines operate and how their internal software calculates numbers is opaque. Legally, they are said to be mere sorting machines, but in reality, their impact on the final tally is significant. Ultimately, the public has no choice but to accept the premise that "the machines are accurate." The demand to trust a unverifiable "black box" breeds suspicion rather than building institutional trust. Such issues are not unique to Korea. The German Federal Constitutional Court's 2009 ruling that "electronic voting machines that citizens cannot directly verify are unconstitutional," and the fact that the United States began to allow manual verification after the 2000 Florida recount are highly suggestive.

Ballots, once counting is complete, are legally required to be preserved for the duration of the elected official's term. Some procedures stipulate that ballots and remaining unused ballots be sealed and moved to a secure location equipped with CCTV. However, provisions specifically mentioning a physical facility like a "safe" are not found, and detailed rules on storage methods or the possibility of public access are not clear in publicly available documents. 

Even if recounts are permitted, they can only proceed within a limited scope designated by the court. Following the 2020 general election, damaged ballots or those with suspicious print quality were discovered during some recounts. However, courts largely concluded that "while there were procedural issues, they did not affect the election results." 

This stance by the Supreme Court is interpreted as saying, "There are traces of illegality, but the damage is minor, so there's no problem," leading to ridicule as if saying, "A thief broke in, but the damage was minimal, so it wasn't a theft." 

Ultimately, the judicial structure, which does not invalidate results even when procedural flaws are revealed, creates the paradox of further fueling public suspicion.

The National Election Commission releases detailed statistics such as the number of votes received by each candidate, voter turnout, and the proportion of invalid ballots on its website from immediately after the election. While it boasts perfect transparency in terms of numbers, this is merely "numerical transparency" and does not guarantee "process transparency." 

The public cannot directly examine the ballots, nor can they verify the security of the electronic system themselves. As it becomes difficult to guarantee trust solely through the authority of the system, the question, "Then why can't they show us?" grows larger.

This question is not mere curiosity but evolves into a fundamental question about the legitimacy of the system.

The system for 5·18 Democratic Patriots and Martyrs and the electoral system appear entirely different at first glance. However, they are similar in their structure that breeds distrust. The scope and scale of distinguished individuals are confirmed by statistics, but their names are not disclosed. The vote counts and turnout in elections are confirmed by statistics, but the process is not directly visible to the public.

A structure where numbers exist but names do not, and results are present but verification is absent. This is the common pathology that erodes trust in democracy. Therefore, raising issues should not stop at merely revealing distrust but should move to the stage of seeking alternatives.

The abolition of early voting systems is sometimes mentioned as the simplest alternative. 

However, the reality that most developed countries, including the United States, Norway, Canada, and Switzerland, operate early or mail-in voting cannot be ignored. Rather than abolition, strengthening transparency and supplementing verification procedures is a more persuasive direction. 

There is a need for institutional reforms such as extending the effective preservation period of ballots to at least 2-3 years, establishing an independent verification body separate from the election commission to regularly inspect equipment and software, and disclosing election equipment to a level where the public can directly verify it. 

Trust in democracy stems not from the speed of numbers but from the transparency of the process.

Preview of Next Article

In Part III of this series, following the 5·18 Democratic Patriots and Martyrs system and the electoral system, we will delve into the issue of state-institutionalized memory. We will conduct an in-depth analysis of how far state-defined truths can be trusted and whether institutionalized memory can be a force to sustain democracy.

#HiddenDemocracy #ElectoralSystem #BallotVerification #ElectronicVoteCounter #ElectionDistrust #DemocraticTrust #InternationalCases #Recount #BlackBox #EarlyVoting