Isn't that the point?
"Some voters could not exercise their franchise because the verification device rejected them even though they were in possession of their voter's ID card and their names were in the register." (Peace FM)
How about...?
Some prospective voters could not exercise the franchise because the verification device rejected them even though they were in possession of a voter's ID card and their names were in the register.
...which is precisely the point of biometric voter verification. Entities that have adopted biometric verification have implicitly stated that the card and the name are not sufficient to prove identity. Cards are forged. The names of the dead remain on the registry. Ghost voters (who don't have fingerprints) are invented. Those things really happen.
On the other hand it is possible, even likely, that some number of people legitimately entitled to vote, and duly registered were prevented from casting a ballot by misapplication of the hardware, a database error or a bad ID transaction due to a damaged finger or dirty sensor, but the article doesn't produce any examples.
Nevertheless, the electoral commission would be well served to seek out individuals who claim to fit the description quoted above in order to audit the process. Did they register? Is their template in the database? Did it make it on to the proper verification terminal for the appropriate polling place? Etc.
So far, the article's five comments are unanimous. Verification should stay
