Chairman Song Ki-heon bangs the gavel at a plenary meeting of the Special Committee on Political Reform at the National Assembly on the 26th. [Photo=Yonhap News]

The management of elections by the National Election Commission (NEC) was once again brought into question as the Special Committee on Political Reform convened at the National Assembly on the 26th.

During the committee meeting, opposition party lawmakers sharply criticized the entire pre-voting procedure. The NEC Secretary General, in his response, reiterated the existing stance but couldn't hide his discomfort.

Common issues raised in the debate surrounding the pre-voting system include the method of stamping by election officials and the identity verification procedures. However, these points sidestep the core of the problem.

This is because the legality of the stamping method and the functioning of the identity verification system have already been largely addressed through legal judgments and system explanations.

The crux of the current controversy is not whether criminal acts can be prevented.

It is about how visibly the election procedures are explained to the public and whether the system is designed with a structure that allows for post-election verification.

In other words, it is not a question of 'Can it be forged?', but rather, 'Can the NEC convincingly prove to a third party that ballots were legitimately issued and distributed to voters?'

Nevertheless, the NEC's responses have been limited to explanations such as, "It is not a forgery," "There is no problem according to the Supreme Court ruling," and "Identity verification is being conducted."

Regarding the stamping by election officials, the NEC repeatedly stated its position that printed stamps are also legal, citing Supreme Court ruling 2017su122. However, this ruling only addressed the legality of printed stamps, not the comprehensive consideration of a structure that could allow for post-election verification of whether each ballot was legitimately issued to a specific voter.

The explanation regarding the identity verification device also deviates from the main point.

The NEC explains that the NEC can track fraudulent voting retrospectively through ID checks and fingerprint registration at polling stations. However, this is a description of the procedure for confirming 'who came to the polling station.'

 It is far from explaining a structure that allows for verification at the ballot level of 'which ballot was issued to whom.'

The issue of ballot box sealing was also raised at the Political Reform Special Committee.

The NEC explained that ballot boxes are sealed after voting concludes and undergo confirmation by observers and management procedures. However, the issue is not whether they are sealed.

The core issue is how to prove, after the fact, that the seal remained intact until the vote counting, without any tampering.

Sealing is not merely a procedural formality but a crucial mechanism that guarantees the contents of the ballots have not been altered before the vote count.

However,

there are criticisms that specific explanations are lacking regarding:

△ how the unique identification information of the seal is managed,

△ who is responsible for the transportation process,

△ and what objective criteria exist to judge when a controversy regarding seal tampering arises.

Similar to how the stamping by election officials and identity verification procedures remain focused on the 'forgery' debate, the ballot box sealing also fails to adequately address the fundamental questions of procedural transparency and verifiability.

Such evasive answers do not help in restoring trust that has already been shaken.

While there are variations depending on the survey, it is clear that the proportion of respondents who do not trust the NEC is approaching half, or even exceeding it in some surveys.

This indicates that, separate from whether the NEC's procedures are legally illegal, significant doubts remain about whether these procedures are sufficiently explained and understood by the public.

The question raised at this point is clear.

Is it common sense to entrust the nation's most critical democratic process to an institution where explanations are repeatedly contradictory and doubts about the verifiability of its procedures remain unresolved?

Despite this, the NEC continues to repeat its existing stance of "no problem." This means the same explanations are being reiterated even when nearly half of the public, or more, expresses distrust.

The reason for the recurring debates surrounding pre-voting is not a lack of law.

It lies in the unexplained procedures and the unproven management structure.

Beyond citing court rulings and introducing the system, the NEC must provide concrete and verifiable answers on how it records and proves the entire process, from ballot issuance, identity verification, ballot box sealing and transportation, to vote counting.

That is the starting point for restoring trust.

By Kim Young