Self-described Information Technology expert Rodolfo "Jun" Lozada has raised an issue against the automated election system. Lozada points out that the PCOS system lacks what is called a 'point of transaction acknowledgment' or POTA.

What's POTA anyway? As Lozada defined it POTA is that piece of paper one gets after an electronic transaction like when we use an ATM to withdraw cash or when we use a credit card to pay for our purchases. Lozada says this automated system should provide that same piece of paper as proof or as a record of votes.

Smartmatic-TIM has already responded to Lozada's point. It said that individual receipts are no longer needed. It further explained that  providing such an acknowledgment receipt is not necessary at all if the purpose is merely to provide a recording of votes that can later be used for verification. Smartmatic-TIM pointed out that the ballot itself already serves that purpose.

When I first heard about this POTA issue I thought Lozada may have raised a valid point. But, the more I thought about it I realized that POTA is really an unnecessary feature. To reiterate Smartmatic-TIM's explanation, the ballot already serves as the document that can be referred to later on if and when verification is needed. In short if POTA were to be added as a feature it would do nothing to improve the system. It would just create an unnecessary and purpose-less redundancy.

It's interesting to note that Lozada made it seem as if POTA will plug some system loophole. That is simply not true. As far as I can tell (and I may be corrected if I'm wrong) there is no loophole at that point of the voting process that could be addressed by having a POTA.

Lozada was quoted as saying that POTA would "give an acknowledgment or confirmation that your choices are the ones counted.” Clearly, what he was describing is some sort of vote summary. What he  failed to clarify is where the POTA should ultimately end up. Assuming that he meant for it to be left with the Comelec then I go back to the argument that the ballot is already enough as a record for verification. But, if he meant for it to end up in the hands of the voter as some sort of receipt (or souvenir) then I will have to say that POTA itself will have created a loophole.

The way I see it POTA as envisioned by Lozada would just complicate the system even more and make it more vulnerable to cheating. Obviously, it wouldn't be such a wise thing if the POTA would be allowed to be taken out of the voting precincts in the first place. If that were allowed then the POTA could potentially serve as a way for vote-buying candidates to verify their purchases.

If you think about it even under the antiquated manual system there really is no POTA equivalent. The ballot itself is the voter's proof of how he voted. It already serves as his vote summary.