RSP Convention EVM Controversy: Developers Clarify Technical Realities [Full Details]

2nd July 2026, Kathmandu

Following the recent general convention of the Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP) held in Chitwan, several rumors and misleading reports have surfaced on social media regarding the Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) used in the election.

RSP Convention EVM Controversy

To address these misconceptions, the research and development team behind this homegrown Nepalese voting technology has issued an official clarifying statement.

With 13 years of continuous R&D and a track record of successfully executing nearly 300 highly competitive organization elections (including Nepal Jaycees, RPP, and CPN-UML) with 100% accuracy, the tech team emphasized that the issues faced during the RSP election were not due to technological limitations, but rather “managerial shortcomings and last-minute structural changes” enforced by the election committee.

Here are the 5 major questions raised during the RSP election and the factual technical reality behind them:

1. Why were 64 candidates placed under a single voting cluster?

Myth: The EVM system failed to separate the candidates into categories.

Reality: The technical team had initially designed the system with separate clusters for different categories. However, at the eleventh hour, the RSP Election Commission instructed them to merge open and inclusive candidates into a single group. Despite technical warnings that this would complicate voting, the commission insisted on maintaining this structure in accordance with the party’s constitution.

2. Why were candidate names and serial numbers altered or incorrect?

Myth: A glitch in the system messed up the candidate order and names.

Reality: Developers have zero authority to add, delete, or alter any candidate detail within the machine. The EVM strictly mirrors the final, signed list provided by the Election Commission. Any discrepancy in names or serial numbers stems directly from the official list provided to the team.

Advertisement

3. Why was voting made ‘Mandatory’ instead of ‘Optional’?

Myth: The machines forced voters to cast votes for a fixed number of candidates due to software errors.

Reality: The machines were originally configured for optional voting, accommodating “Right to Reject” options as per the initial agreement. However, during the midnight data handover, the Election Commission demanded that voting be made mandatory. The tech team requested a written order highlighting the potential issues, and the system configuration was only changed after receiving official written instructions from the commission.

4. Why were candidate photos missing from the digital ballot?

Myth: Domestic Nepalese technology cannot display candidate photos.

Reality: A photo-integrated digital ballot was fully prepared beforehand. However, because the commission altered the cluster structure, they provided the final revised candidate list only at 11:30 PM. Re-mapping photos for such a large volume of candidates requires 8 to 10 hours. Due to the commission’s directive to commence voting within an hour of receiving the list, displaying photos became logistically and technically impossible.

5. Why was the final election result delayed?

Myth: The electronic voting machines took too long to count the votes.

Reality: Voting concluded at 12:00 PM on Ashadh 10, but the team was ordered to pause counting as out-of-country (diaspora) voting had not yet commenced. Once diaspora voting concluded around 6:00 PM, the tech team processed and counted 2,92,941 votes across 80 EVM units in just 10 minutes and handed the data to the commission. Any subsequent delay in the official announcement was due to the internal bureaucratic procedures of the Election Commission.

Developer’s Note: “Before the convention, we provided a comprehensive 20-page operational guideline manual to ensure smooth execution. Unfortunately, those recommendations were not effectively implemented. We stand by the 100% transparency, neutrality, and accountability of our technology and are ready to provide clarification on any public platform.”

For more: RSP Convention EVM Controversy