If there was ever a common topic in the aftermath of the Presidential Elections 2010 and especially after the results were announced it was this: RIGGING. Not a soul was spared of this topic. The entire country it seemed were debating how the election was rigged or how it was not.
The pro Rajapaksa supporters claimed it was sour grapes whilst the defeated candidate anointed himself the president who was robbed of victory.
We examine here step by step as to how rigging could or could not take place. After careful examination of the process, it would appear that the most logical explanation is that when the count became obviously in favour of one candidate the losing candidates’ polling agents left the counting centre before the final tally was completed. Once having departed from the counting centres, these polling agents would have no knowledge at all as to what happened thereafter – that it self does not necessarily mean that rigging took place: it merely points to the fact that while the counting progressed and as one bundle grew bigger and bigger, the losing side took a decision to leave the centre, conceding defeat.
There are claims however that the polling agents who left the centres were virtually forced to leave through intimidation and threats and coercion. However Sri Lanka has had elections spread over the past 62 years and the process is well known and there can be no new, untried and untested methodology for rigging. The threats are not new and all the parties would have been prepared for the worst. At least they ought to have expected the worst. If they did not, then they stand accused of grave naivety.
Significantly the Elections Commissioner stated last week that there were no threats or incidents within the counting centres. The reports of threats and intimidation and damage to property belonging to party polling agents are outside of the centres and therefore becomes a matter for the police and is clearly not under the purview of the Elections Commissioner.
There is no excuse of rigging or coercion and intimidation. However, the reality is that there was no need to invent the wheel again. All parties party to the election process have for long engaged in rigging at some time or other. The checks and balances are only thought of at the last moment only to be forgotten soon after an election – surfacing just as the results get announced.
The politicians of this country of every hue and persuasion must stand condemned for their utter lack of focus and direction in addressing this anomaly. They must put in place measures that are not so easily violable. The simple expediency of having live cameras, broadcasting on specially opened channels and on the internet for each counting centre would quite easily dispel any threat and intimidation. Not one single politician worth his salt has put his or her mind to this important aspect of the electoral process. Not one. If they have, the public have not been made aware of that.
It is indicative of the mismanagement of Sri Lanka – spread over 62 years of independence. The lack of will to turn it into an effectively managed nation is shocking. After 62 years of independence and innumerable elections, the fact that the politicians are arguing about electoral fraud is stupendous.

Here’s how it works:

1.    Voter turns up at centre with the National Identity Card. Therefore impersonation is virtually non-existent, technically.  However the possibility of fraudulent identity cards is a reality. The fraudulent identity card must be registered in the 2008 electoral list. Therefore any fraud would have had to be planned well in advance. Copies of the 2008 electoral list would be available with all parties and therefore any discrepancies would be easily identified.
2.    Each candidate has polling agents at each polling booth and counting centre.
3.    Voter’s name is announced and each party will check their lists to see if voter is present on the list.
4.    Finger marked with ink and ballot paper given
5.    Vote cast – the ballot paper is serially numbered.
6.    The number of issued ballot papers must tally with the number of ballot papers cast.
7.    If there are any ballot papers not issued to a voter who stays away, these papers must be returned and separately tallied.
8.    After voting the sealed ballot boxes – sealed in front of all candidates’ agents – are transferred under armed guard to the counting centre.
9.    Transport carried out by police.
10.    No impediment for agents to follow the vehicle.
11.    Sealed ballot boxes are opened in front  of the agents at the counting centre.
12.    Officials of Elections Commissioner and candidates are present.
13.    Counting begins.
14.    Each candidates votes are separated.
15.    Each candidates votes are bundled into lots of 50 sheets.
16.    Bundles of 50’s then counted.
17.    Tally made between polling both and counting centre numbers.
18.    Results are entered onto carbonised paper and each candidate is given a copy certified by the Elections Commissioner.
19.    One copy transmitted to Elections Commissioner’s office.
20.    In 2010 this transmission was by e-mail.
21.    Transferred to the computer at EC offices.
22.    Results announced

Fraud is possible when:

Counting is going on, a ballot in favour of one candidate could end up in the pile of another candidate. This is highly risky as it assumes that the candidates’ agent is not paying attention. Therefore candidates choose their agent supposedly wisely!
Ballot boxes could be introduced to the counting centre. Difficult to check but also difficult to accomplish as the tally sheets would need to be considered.

And here is another theory:

The results announced through the mass media, in a summarised format, was as stated below:
Total Valid Votes:              10,495,451    -    74.4%
Total Registered Votes      14,088,500    -    100.0%
Rajapaksa’s Share of
the Votes                                   6,015,934    -    57.3%
Fonseka’s Share of
the Votes                                   4,173,185    -    39.8%
Votes Shared by other
Candidates                                     306,332    -    2.9%

The electoral manipulation could have been a simple statistical adjustment undertaken in the Election Commissioner’s office in Colombo, as can be observed from below.
When the voting numbers were received through the computer from the electoral counting centres, the computer operator in transmitting the figures for purposes of printing in the format required for the Commissioner’s signature, transfers 10,000 votes from Fonseka’s to Rajapaksa’s votes.  He also alters the percentages of the votes accordingly.  All other numbers and particulars remain unchanged.
The election is conducted on the basis of 160 electoral districts.  Of these 160 electoral districts 20 districts in the north and east were not taken for voting adjustments, because the polling was considerably low and also, importantly, the Sinhala community is a very small minority in these districts.  In the circumstances, the number of electoral districts available for vote adjustments were only 140.
To determine the true polling numbers obtained by the two main candidates, one has to reverse the vote adjustments undertaken in the Election Commissioner’s office.
These revised numbers will show, as given below, the true results of the 2010 Presidential Election.

(i)    140 Electoral Districts x 10,000 votes will amount to 1,400,000 votes.

(ii)    The above number added to Fonseka’s published figure will be – (4,173,185 + 1,400,000) = 5,573,185 votes and 53.1%

(iii)    Rajapaksa’s revised vote will be – (6,015,934 – 1,400,000) = 4,615,934 and 44.0%

-Sundayleader-