Exit polls vs EVM

Exit polls are banned (illegal) in our country, and yet the proponents of electronic voting machine (EVM) adoption, among whom we count the republic's president, argue that the EVM would speed up vote processing during the general elections. It is indisputable that every voter would like to have the election results announced as soon as possible after the elections. It is also indisputable that every voter (other than the politicians) would like the election results to accurately reflect how the voters voted, that is which candidates won, and where. So a balance has to be struck between election processing speed and integrity of an election. Unfortunately politicians exploit the voter's ignorance and desire for speed to the complete exclusion of the desire for integrity of an election, because integrity is counter to the vested interests of politicians - to steal the election results from the actual victors. So, while EVMs and exit polls are both scientific methods of attaining maximum speed and verifiable integrity respectively, and both methods give the result of an election as soon as the last vote is cast, politicians have banned exit polls and are actively trying to bulldoze the EVM into our electoral space. Why are our voters ignorant about the role EVMs and exit polls play in elections? Where are our institutions of higher learning such as the University of Botswana (UB)? Why do these institutions of higher learning leave the task of educating voters to the "Independent Electoral Commission", a group whose members are appointed by one political party - the ruling Botswana Democratic Party (BDP)?

Let me try to explain to the uninitiated.  Exit polls are base on the indication by voters as they leave the voting premises, of which party they voted for. When a voter exits the "school fence" he/she is met by a pollster. The pollster does not know the voter, and does not even ask the voter what his/her name is. Anonymity is therefore guaranteed. All the pollster does, on receiving the voter's answer, is to count up by one, the number of votes already recorded as cast for the party the voter claims to have voted for. That's it.

There is one pollster outside every polling station, and all these pollsters are constantly in touch. They continuously add up their cumulative counts, such that when the last vote in the country is cast, they have a very good approximation of which party won how many seats and at what constituencies. Like in all statistical measures probability plays a major role in exit polls. Some voters will lie to the pollster, just for the heck of it. The pollster will not know that the voter is lying, therefore the result  of the exit poll can never be a substitute for the actual counting of votes. But the voters who lie will be a negligible minority. The vast majority of voters will tell the pollster the truth, because it is in their interest that the poll reflects the actual voting pattern as closely as possible. Furthermore, the voters feel assured of anonymity, therefore they have no fear of any repercussions for voting "the wrong party" if they have so done. Where the polling institution uses a computer, such as would be the case if the UB was conducting the exit poll, approximate results of an election would be available immediately the voting ends. Counting would the reveal the extent of the exit poll's accuracy.

Exit polling is science based. It is mathematics; not voodoo. Most countries in the world use it. In our country it is hard to reconcile the government's banning of exit polls with their (government's) incessant and clandestine manuverings to sneak the EVM back into our political space. Those UB dons who would have us believe that the civil service should be purged by any incoming president to suit his/her fancy would better serve the nation by fighting for the legalisation of exit polling during general elections.