NEC Claims Voter Turnout Input Error Was 'Administrative Negligence'; Public Outrage Spreads

This position is the commission's official explanation regarding the turnout error issue raised during the National Assembly special committee hearing on the parliamentary investigation.

The commission is concerned that the controversy arising from this incident could lead to widespread public distrust of the entire election system, and is working to calm the situation through active explanations and the establishment of measures to prevent recurrence.

Acting Secretary-General Kang Dong-an of the NEC stated that there are inevitable limitations in the process of tallying voter counts. Acting Chairman Wi Chul-hwan and former Chairman No Tae-hak and other NEC leadership repeatedly argued that time-slot voter counts are merely provisional data that do not affect the actual ballot results.

While acknowledging that errors may occur during the interim tallying process, they maintained that there is no problem with the reliability of the final counting results.

The NEC cited errors in the voter count and communication errors in data entry by local election commissions as the causes of this incident. As measures to prevent recurrence, it announced plans to switch the turnout survey method to sampling, extend the publication interval from one hour to two hours, and introduce an automatic warning system for abnormal fluctuations.

These measures were presented with the intention of minimizing similar errors that may occur in future election administration and of raising the accuracy and reliability of turnout information.

Some also view the measures with suspicion, saying they seem intended to strengthen information control rather than enhance transparency.

Critics say that an institution responsible for managing fair elections based on public trust, which fails to get even basic figures right and yet insists that the result did not affect vote totals, is engaging in a classic scapegoating response. They argue that asking the public to trust the counting results when the voter count was not even properly tallied amounts to deceiving citizens.

These critics stress that the commission's explanation is insufficient to resolve public suspicion and is instead deepening distrust.

Rep. Kim Eun-hye held a press conference at the National Assembly communication office in Yeouido. She disclosed that the Central Election Commission had provided specific timelines, input methods, and distributed processing structures, even attaching example Excel files. Rep. Kim argued, "This is not simply administrative error, but can be seen as an active manipulation carried out by mobilizing an organization."

This disclosure was presented as strong evidence suggesting that, rather than the 'administrative negligence' the commission claims, this was a premeditated, organized manipulation.

He further disclosed that as many as 117 locations nationwide had entered turnout figures in advance, as if using a time machine.

Rep. Ju's disclosure presented specific figures suggesting that problems identified in past elections had recurred in this general election, and that the possibility of pre-voting turnout manipulation was real.

Beyond simple system improvements, the public is strongly demanding that the truth of the allegations be clearly revealed and that those involved be held responsible.

The criticism is that an organization that never needed to exist, and was founded to prevent fraud, has itself become corrupt.

This view raises fundamental questions about the commission's raison d'être and function, voicing the extreme position that dissolution, not just restructuring, should be considered.

Only through a thorough investigation can a proper outcome be expected.

There is growing demand that the parliamentary investigation go beyond assigning blame and fulfill its essential role so as to lead to substantive institutional reform.

Many called for a recount of the Maricopa County vote, and with millions of dollars raised, a manual recount was actually carried out, yet almost no errors were found.

The explanation given is that the voter registrations themselves were fake, based on counterfeit identification. This suggests that beyond finding visible errors in the counting process, it is important to identify the fundamental sources of fraud.

It was argued that there is considerable evidence of fake voters. Reports of pre-printed ballots being brought through airports and moved secretly, and of counterfeit IDs being intercepted by customs, have already been published multiple times. The claim that computer systems were vulnerable to manipulation suggests that results could be falsified.

While the commission speaks of voter turnout, it is commonly asserted that even counting rates can be fully manipulated, and hypotheses have been raised that electronic manipulation was carried out along with methods to forge evidence.

What parliamentary investigations can currently do is limited to demanding materials that already exist after the events have occurred.

Still, those materials revealed problems at more than 100 locations nationwide, and showed that issues existed not only in the local elections but also in the presidential and general elections. This emphasizes that although the parliamentary investigation has revealed some facts, the authority of a special prosecutor is needed for a deeper pursuit of the truth.

Once a special prosecutor is set in motion, other areas can be investigated. Personal relationships, their movements, and who met whom, when, where, and what they discussed can be examined more closely.

This means that, beyond the document-submission powers of a parliamentary investigation, the truth that has been concealed could be brought to light through investigative authority.

It was suggested that the process by which counterfeit ballots arrived, and the possibility that NEC staff themselves may not have known, could be examined. Charitably, the explanation is that NEC staff may have been deceived without knowing.

The speculation is that since no one knows where the ballots came from, staff asked superiors, were told to accept them, and then counted them as legitimate votes on orders from above, only to later find out that they were problematic. It is also predicted that this will eventually come to light.

Claims continue to emerge that the ballots themselves were problematic. Uncovering this is said to be difficult in a parliamentary investigation, and would need to be carried out by a special prosecutor, which is why the special prosecutor is emphasized as highly important.

The suspicion over counterfeit ballots is one of the core points of the fraud controversy, and it is argued that investigative authority beyond that of a parliamentary investigation is needed to clarify it.

The parliamentary investigation committee must clearly understand what the problems with elections are and must finalize its investigation report.

Only then can work proceed to create proper election laws and revise election procedure laws. Therefore, it is explained that aligning the parliamentary investigation with the special prosecutor's investigation as it proceeds is a highly meaningful approach.

The Democratic Party appears to be strongly resisting the special prosecutor to prevent it, and the more the Democratic Party lawmakers object, the more suspicious it looks, critics say.