From left, Jeong Gyu-jae, former editorial writer for The Korea Economic Daily, President Lee, Jo Gab-je, CEO of 'Jo Gab-je.com', and Lee Gyu-yeon, Senior Presidential Secretary for Public Communication  [Photo=Presidential Office]Democracy stands on trust. However, that trust is not built by the declarations of authorities. Trust is born when it passes through verification. The same applies to elections. To demand that citizens believe election results, the election management process must be sufficiently transparent and verifiable for the public to accept. If the process is closed off, demanding belief is not democracy, but authoritarianism.

This does not mean that all election fraud theories are correct. Nor does it mean we should overturn election results. The core issue lies elsewhere. It is about how a democratic society should respond in language when questions are raised about the election management system. If the doubts are wrong, they can be refuted with data. If the claims are flimsy, they can be dismantled through public verification. However, the moment a request for verification is pushed aside with terms like "mental illness," "lies," or "poison," the debate moves from the arena of verification to the arena of stigma.

The remarks made by Jo Gab-je, CEO of Jo Gab-je.com, are rough in that regard. Regarding election fraud theories, he stated, "Over ten million people have fallen into a kind of mental illness." He also characterized election fraud theories as a danger comparable to communism and suggested that the discussion itself is a waste of time. According to a report by Edaily, he compared proponents of election fraud theories to those who claim "one plus one equals four" or that "the sun rises in the west."

These words are excessively harsh to be considered the language of a commentator who is a former journalist. The greater problem is not the harshness of the expressions themselves. It is that stigma has taken the place of logic. To refute election suspicions, one must present which points are wrong and on what grounds. Issues such as early voting management, voter roll management, ballot sorters and manual counting procedures, NEC server and internal controls, the possibility of recounts, and statistical anomalies must be examined one by one. However, Jo Gab-je's language pathologizes all those who raise suspicions. This is exclusion, not refutation.

Language that Closes Discussion

Specifically, the attitude of "discussion is a waste of time" is not the language of democracy. Elections are the gateway to democracy. Doubts about this gateway should be discussed most openly. Saying discussion is unnecessary is not proof that verification is complete. Rather, it is read as a declaration to close the arena of verification.

If one can win through verification, stigma is unnecessary. If there is sufficient data, there is no reason to avoid discussion. If election fraud theories are wrong, the fact that they are wrong can be demonstrated through public data and procedural verification. Yet, the term "mental illness" comes out first. Then, we are compelled to ask: Is discussion unnecessary, or is there a lack of logic to sustain a discussion?

Jo Gab-je continued to make similar remarks in an interview with Aju Business Daily. He explained that Korean elections are not electronically counted, but manually counted, with machines used only for sorting at the end. He also described election fraud theories using the language of "mental illness" and "infection." However, this argument is a defensive logic that narrows the core issues of the election counting process to a single word.

The Defensive Logic of "Manual Counting"

There is an explanation that ballot sorters are legally devices that assist in vote counting in Korean elections. The Central Election Commission's electoral materials also describe ballot sorters as equipment introduced to reduce the fatigue of vote counters and expedite the counting process. Ballot sorters were first used in the 3rd National Simultaneous Local Elections in 2002 and have since been improved multiple times, with the introduction of new 2024 models.

However, the statement "it's manual counting, not electronic counting" is not a sufficient answer. Ballots are sorted by candidate and party through the ballot sorter, followed by a human verification process and a counting review. The fact that the Election Commission added a manual verification step for human visual inspection between the existing flow of 'ballot sorter → inspection counter' before the 2024 general election is in the same vein. According to a report by Maeil Business Newspaper, the Election Commission pursued a structure of 'sorter → visual inspection → counting counter,' and the manual counting procedure was subsequently introduced for the 22nd general election.

Therefore, the issue is not the terminology. The core is how the ballot sorter recognizes ballots, on what criteria it classifies items for re-verification, how the possibility of errors is checked, and how much the manual count actually filters out those errors. The answer for democracy is not the declaration "that's not electronic counting," but the disclosure of error rates by equipment, the ratio of re-verification targets, the results of manual count corrections, and the preservation methods for equipment logs and images.

The Election Commission stated after the 2024 general election that there were no errors in the ballot sorters mixing candidate numbers. While there were cases where sorters malfunctioned at some counting stations and backup sorters were used, the explanation was that there were no misclassification errors between candidates. However, this does not mean that "requests for verification are unnecessary." On the contrary, trust is strengthened as such data is disclosed and accumulated more concretely in each election.

The problem is not whether it's electronic or manual counting. It is whether the entire counting process involving machines is transparently open to public verification.

The Issue of Chain of Custody

A more important concept in elections is the chain of custody. In Korean, this translates to 'continuous storage and management record of ballots and election data.' It is a procedure that records chronologically who, when, where, and under what conditions received and handed over ballots, equipment, and electronic records. In U.S. election security, chain of custody is also explained as a record that documents the control and transfer process of election materials such as ballots or voting equipment. This concept applies not only to physical equipment but also to electronic records and transmission data.

Applying this concept makes it clearer why Jo Gab-je's "manual counting" argument is insufficient. Even if the final decision is made by humans, a continuous management record of the entire process, from when the ballots leave the voter's hands, enter the ballot box, are transported from the polling station to the counting station, pass through the sorter, are classified for re-verification, undergo manual counting and inspection, and are transferred to the tally sheet, must exist. It must be verifiable at each stage who confirmed the seal, when the seal was broken, which equipment it was input into, whether the equipment log was saved, whether the image file was preserved, and up to what stage the observers confirmed.

Ballots are not paper; they are evidence of national sovereignty. Evidence requires management records, not belief. If the chain of custody is robust, suspicions of election fraud weaken. Conversely, if the records are lax or difficult to verify publicly, trust cannot be demanded solely with the word "manual counting."

Election trust is not built with words. Every path from a single ballot leaving the voter's hand to its final tally must be traceable. That is the chain of custody of an election. To speak of "it's not electronic counting" without this principle is to bypass the core of verification.

The Case of Jeong Gyu-jae

The case of Jeong Gyu-jae, former editorial writer for The Korea Economic Daily, differs slightly from Jo Gab-je's. Jeong criticized election fraud theories becoming dominant language in conservative public discourse, calling "election fraud theories a poison that kills conservatives." According to an interview in Monthly Chosun, he also stated that he produced videos refuting types of suspicions related to election fraud when he was the CEO of Penn & Mike. In this respect, it may not be accurate to categorize Jeong Gyu-jae solely by stigmatizing language, as Jo Gab-je did.

However, Jeong Gyu-jae's language also leaves issues. He described those who believe in election fraud theories as "irrational" or "anti-rational," and characterized election fraud theories as a poison that kills conservatives. The interview in Monthly Chosun also includes a section where he explains that he deliberately used strong expressions.

The problem is the same here. Election verification requests must be distinguished from politically dogmatized election fraud theories. Those who deny the entire election result or assert unverified claims as facts should be criticized. However, if vulnerabilities in the election management system, the accountability of the National Election Commission, transparency in the counting process, and requests for the possibility of recounts are all lumped together and defined as "poison," it stifles requests for verification.

Requests for Verification Are a Right of Democracy

Criticizing election fraud theories and blocking election verification requests are different. The former can be a democratic debate. The latter weakens democracy's self-purification mechanism. Election trust is not built by saying "believe me." It is built by showing why it can be believed. Trust is built by making procedures transparent, keeping records, answering questions, and allowing counterarguments.

The common limitation of Jo Gab-je and Jeong Gyu-jae lies here. While both strongly emphasized the political harms of election fraud theories, they did not sufficiently respect the demand for more public access to and verification of the election management system. Jo Gab-je pathologized those who raised suspicions, and Jeong Gyu-jae defined it as poison for the conservative camp. However, the questions of democracy are not directed at people. They are directed at procedures. Democracy is about asking, "Are the procedures verifiable?" not "Who is strange?"

Demanding belief in elections is not democracy. The attitude of "we must be able to verify elections to believe them" is democracy. Those who block such verification requests with stigma are not criticizing election fraud theories; they are blocking the path to restoring election trust themselves.

If Jo Gab-je and Jeong Gyu-jae are to speak of democracy, they must first answer this question: Why are requests for verification objects of stigma rather than discussion? Why should citizens' doubts be pushed aside with terms like mental illness, poison, or irrationality before being refuted with data?

Democracy is a system that makes trust and verification move forward together. The moment trust is demanded without verification, it is no longer the language of democracy. It is the language of authority.