This is my personal opinion and observation.

When professor Jega was the INEC chief, he introduced accreditation and voting systems through the use of card readers. The process was that you come for accreditation and after which you come back to vote at a set time of that same day. The voters would have known the number of the people accredited to vote and the likely numbers of votes in a polling Unit. Therefore there is no way election result could be inflated or added for any political party.

But since the beginning of this administration, the new INEC chief introduced a system where you are accredited and vote simultaneously on the excuse that it saves time but this system will expose the system to fraud because you are not likely to know how many people were accredited and the numbers of likely votes in a unit.

The danger/likely fraud is that votes may be added for any of the contestants at any time afteral, you do not have the figures of the expected votes before the commencement of the vote.

I strongly suggest that we go back to the system where we conduct accreditations of voters separately from voting itself. It will make the process more credible.

What do you think?

u

To me both processes are ok. The party agents are there to check abuses & rigging.

thunder74:
This is my personal opinion and observation.

When professor Jega was the INEC chief, he introduced accreditation and voting systems through the use of card readers. The process was that you come for accreditation and after which you come back to vote at a set time of that same day. The voters would have known the number of the people accredited to vote and the likely numbers of votes in a polling Unit. Therefore there is no way election result could be inflated or added for any political party.

But since the beginning of this administration, the new INEC chief introduced a system where you are accredited and vote simultaneously on the excuse that it saves time but this system will expose the system to fraud because you are not likely to know how many people were accredited and the numbers of likely votes in a unit.

The danger/likely fraud is that votes may be added for any of the contestants at any time afteral, you do not have the figures of the expected votes before the commencement of the vote.

I strongly suggest that we go back to the system where we conduct accreditations of voters separately from voting itself. It will make the process more credible.

What do you think?

I think you're uninformed

I think you are very right, @Op.

Don't mind the Federal dissenting voices attempting to castigate you for opening hours buttocks.

Jonathan an Jega allow the process to be that transparent for posterity sakes and for the present Administration to have an easy ride in.

Now that they are in, they are after bungling , process to remain in power for ever.

God pass them.

Are you telling me that the vote cast at a particular polling unit can be more than the registered voters at the unit. Op if it ever happened the results of the unit will outrightly be cancelled.

We must never be too rigid in our processes.

Carrying out accreditation and then asking people to go back to their house and come back to vote does not make much sense.


I can assure you that a good number of people will not come back.

Why must you make people go through so much stress just to vote, most times the accreditation and voting us usually in scorching sun and they usually walk to these polling units.

We should learn something from the elections in the US, where the voting arenas and arrangements were skewed to the uttermost confort of the voters.

The essence of spending so much on electronic accreditation system is to be able to safe keep and pull the records if needed.

All party agents are usually there to monitor happenings.

The scenario you painted about compromising the system is also possible in the previous approach.

This accreditation and then voting is the best. It's simple, it's easier to monitor and calculate all the people that came for accreditation and voting.