T

he plan to use cardboard ballot boxes in the upcoming April 17, election has been met with criticism over fear that the boxes are prone to damage, and therefore pave the way for fraud. Is that right?

Article 341 of the 2017 Elections Law mandates the use of transparent ballot boxes. Technicalities concerning ballot boxes are left to the General Elections Commission (KPU).

The KPU has decided to choose ballot boxes made of cardboard because the old, aluminum ones have been used since 2004 and many of them are in poor condition. Aluminum boxes are not easy to maintain either because they require adequate warehouses, while not all regional KPUs have storage rooms.

Aluminum boxes are not only expensive but also require a long assembly process and costly transportation. As the boxes were designed to last a long time, they become state assets and therefore require a monthly turnaround that is not cheap at regional KPUs in 34 provinces and 514 regencies and municipalities.

Some weaknesses of the aluminum boxes prompted proposals of alternative materials. The KPU then studied the proposals from various parties, considering their designs, materials, specifications and sizes. Finally, it was decided to use waterproof duplex cardboard.

The KPU’s proposal to use cardboard boxes has gone through public testing and a hearing, attended by Home Affairs Ministry officials and lawmakers, in compliance with the Elections Law. The new ballot boxes use transparent waterproof cardboard material on each side as required by the law. The use of cardboard boxes is proven to be considerably less expensive because of their cheap production cost and the absence of a maintenance cost. The boxes are disposable and can be sold to the public, with the money going back to the state coffers.

When it comes to the issue of security and vulnerability to fraud, aluminum or iron boxes are not necessarily better than cardboard ones. In fact, all cast ballots must be collected and kept inside sealed envelopes. All the punched ballots, vote counting documents and other poll materials must be put inside the ballot boxes, which must be sealed and wrapped in plastic before being returned to district KPUs.

In practice, election fraud used to have nothing to do with ballot boxes. The Elections Supervisory Agency and poll watches that closely monitored the 2014 election process discovered that the fraud, including vote rigging, occurred outside the boxes.

The official and non-state poll watches found that almost all the candidates in the 2014 elections practiced vote buying. Poll watch People’s Voters Education Network (JPPR), for example, said the practice increased 23 percent from the 2009 elections. The JPPR survey in 1,005 polling stations in 25 provinces identified the money politics as the distribution of a banknote worth Rp 20,000 (US$1.41) to each voter, provision of loans, insurance policies, clothing and worship equipment.

Second, thousands of ballots were punched by workers in district KPUs and polling stations prior to voting in the West Java regency of Bogor, North Sumatra regency of South Nias and East Java city of Blitar. The poll workers were tried and found guilty.

Third, thousands of people remained on the voter list even though they had died, changed place of residence or were not eligible to vote, but poll workers ignored the administrative flaws.

Other violations also included the counting of thousands of invalid ballots that did not bear the signatures of poll station chiefs, polling stations that administered voting without the presence of witnesses, poll workers who ignored protests from witnesses and double voting. In other words, electoral fraud occurred not because of the material of ballot boxes, but the poor quality of election organizers. To hold free and fair elections and avoid fraudulent practices, we need first and foremost organizers or poll workers with impeccable integrity and adequate public supervision.
_________________________