Mr. Lelon Saul’s push for biometric voting is premature and lacks conclusive evidence

Feb 08, 2025 Letters

Dear Editor,

Please permit me a space in your newspaper to respond to Mr. Lelon Saul’s letter in the Kaieteur News dated Tuesday, February 4, 2025, where he advocated for legislative reforms to facilitate the use of biometric technology in elections.

I wish to address some misconceptions and unfounded claims made by Mr. Saul, particularly his push to replace physical ballots, which I believe remain the more secure method for ensuring free, fair, and transparent elections. His assertion that biometrics will enhance the efficiency and security of the electoral process lacks conclusive evidence.

While biometric technology may have a place in modernising systems, its introduction will not automatically resolve issues such as voter fraud, inefficiencies, and security breaches commonly associated with elections worldwide. In my opinion, physical ballots are a better safeguard against the concerns Mr. Saul raised.

It is important to remind Mr. Saul that just four years ago, during the failed attempts by his party, the APNU/AFC, to manipulate the 2020 General and Regional Elections, it was the use of physical ballots that helped thwart those efforts. Had biometrics been in use during that election, the coalition might have succeeded in its attempts to manipulate the votes. The physical counting of ballots at polling places and the generating of Statements of Poll subsequently exposed the inflated numbers that Mr. Clairmont Mingo was calling out. If the voting had been electronic, the GECOM staff, who attempted to manipulate the numbers from a “back room,” could have done so undetected, potentially even from a remote location.

The integrity of the 2020 elections was upheld through the painstaking recount of physical ballots, a critical step that ensured the validity of the votes. The physical ballots provided clear evidence of the actual results and prevented manipulation of digital systems that might have gone unnoticed had biometric methods been employed. If similar attempts had been made with biometric data, the results could have lacked transparency, and tampering might have been harder to uncover.

Regarding the issue of voter queues, Mr. Saul’s claim that long lines are primarily the result of outdated voting systems is misguided. In reality, long lines typically occur during the early morning rush when voters are eager to cast their ballots. By noon, the queues generally diminish. Simplifying this problem by suggesting that biometrics would resolve the issue overlooks the fact that queues are often a reflection of human behaviour, not systemic inefficiency.

Additionally, Mr Saul’s assertion that biometrics would significantly reduce delays or improve voter turnout does not take into account the complexities and potential complications associated with implementing such technology. Biometric systems require substantial infrastructure, including the collection and storage of sensitive data, which introduces new risks concerning data privacy and security. Without a clear understanding of how this system would be monitored and safeguarded against misuse, it is premature to claim that it would enhance electoral processes.

There are also ongoing concerns regarding the vulnerability of electronic systems to hacking, malfunctions, or human error. In contrast, the security of physical ballots has been tried, tested, and trusted for decades, even amidst significant challenges.

While modernisation is important, the integrity of the electoral process should not be sacrificed for the sake of convenience or perceived efficiency. Physical ballots remain the most secure, reliable, and transparent means of ensuring that every vote is accurately counted and that the will of the people is accurately reflected.

Taking into account these factors outlined above, one now has to wonder why the opposition seems to be the only ones pushing to have physical ballots replaced with biometrics, given their attempts to manipulate the 2020 General and Regional Elections.

Sincerely,

Eddy Layne

Director of Public Information

(Mr. Lelon Saul’s push for biometric voting is premature and lacks conclusive evidence)

(Mr. Lelon Saul’s push)

APNU-AFC, biometric technology, Kaieteur News, Mr. Lelon Saul's

Latest News

Mr. Lelon Saul’s push for biometric voting is premature and lacks conclusive evidence

Related

Similar Articles

The Glenn Lall Show|| March, 17th, 2025

Follow on Tik Tok @Glennlall

THE BLUNT OF THE DAY

Sports

Maloney Pacers set sights on FIBA 3×3 World Tour qualifiers in...

Government, GOA pledge support for AAG

New Central High among latest winners in MCYS NSC...

Guyanese Ramdhani, Beaton, Beharry represent at...

GFF announces 24-man squad for Concacaf Gold Cup...

Anil Beharry Real Estate, Construction and...

Features/Columnists

America does not fight for free

If Guyana’s President Ali is the “Zelensky of the Caribbean”, who is the Putin?

Guyanese governor, a masterstroke, need to mend

Publisher’s Note

Weekend Cartoon

Bridge Watch

Demerara Harbour Bridge

> Berbice Bridge […]

Mr. Lelon Saul’s push for biometric voting is premature and lacks conclusive evidence

Share this:

Related

Similar Articles

The Glenn Lall Show|| March, 17th, 2025

Follow on Tik Tok @Glennlall

THE BLUNT OF THE DAY

Sports

Features/Columnists

Publisher’s Note

Weekend Cartoon

Bridge Watch

Demerara Harbour Bridge

> Berbice Bridge […]