What Korea’s election anger is really about

Park So-young

The author is an editorial writer at the JoongAng Ilbo. 

On Sept. 26, 2021, an unusual scene unfolded in Berlin. Long lines formed outside polling stations, and some voters were turned away because ballots had run out. Germany’s federal election and Berlin’s state election coincided with the Berlin Marathon, and traffic restrictions disrupted ballot deliveries. Some polling stations even received ballots intended for different districts.

Public outrage followed. Thousands of complaints were filed, and Germany’s Constitutional Court ultimately concluded that serious procedural flaws had undermined the equality and legitimacy of the election. It ordered parts of the election to be rerun.

Berlin did not dismiss the incident as a simple mistake. After an independent investigation, election administration was overhauled, staffing levels were expanded, and ballot printing and distribution procedures were redesigned. Emergency response protocols were also strengthened. The rerun election was not the end of the process but the beginning of institutional reform.

A similar controversy emerged on Nov. 8, 2022, in Luzerne County, Pennsylvania. Ballot shortages at dozens of polling places disrupted voting on Election Day. Civic groups filed emergency lawsuits, and a court extended voting hours by two hours.

Conspiracy theories quickly spread across social media, and politicians traded accusations. Yet investigations by authorities found no evidence of organized interference or election fraud. Instead, the problems were traced to poor coordination during personnel changes and failures in demand forecasting.

County officials publicly disclosed the results of the investigation and reached a settlement with civic groups that had filed voting-rights lawsuits, including reimbursement of legal expenses. Ballot supply standards were strengthened, employee training was expanded and emergency procedures were formalized. The failure was documented and converted into a safeguard against future mistakes.

The experiences of Germany and the United States are not as distant from Korea as they may appear.

During the local elections held on June 3, some polling stations reportedly ran out of ballots earlier than expected. As a result, voters were forced to wait for extended periods or leave without casting ballots. The controversy has persisted after the election, with spontaneous demonstrations taking place in areas including Jamsil, Gwanghwamun and university districts.

The common slogan heard at these gatherings is “rerun the election.”

As the cases of Germany and the United States demonstrate, however, rerunning an election is an extraordinary legal remedy reserved for situations in which procedural legitimacy has been irreparably damaged. Most citizens understand that repeating an entire election is neither simple nor immediately realistic.

Yet the reason protesters have adopted the slogan is clear. What drove people into the streets was not merely the ballot shortage itself but what they viewed as the election commission’s lack of transparency and accountability after the incident.

Citizens have received no convincing explanation for why voter demand was miscalculated or why emergency measures failed to function. In that sense, the call for a new election is not simply a legal demand. It is a broader question from voters: Why did this happen, who is responsible and what will be changed to prevent it from happening again?

Public distrust did not emerge overnight.

The so-called “basket voting” controversy during voting by Covid-19 patients in the 2022 presidential election raised questions about basic election-management principles. Later, allegations of preferential hiring involving relatives of senior election officials dealt another blow to the credibility of the National Election Commission.

The latest controversy has deepened those concerns. Post-election accounts suggested that some polling stations in Jamsil and Gangnam had reported ballot shortages as early as the morning. Critics argue that the commission failed to respond promptly to those warnings, allowing disruptions to worsen.

The problem is not only the inability to prevent the shortage. What has angered many voters is the perception that warning signs were ignored even after they became apparent.

Germany accepted the enormous cost of a rerun election in order to preserve trust in the electoral process. The United States conducted independent investigations despite political tensions and conspiracy theories. In both cases, public anger became a catalyst for reform.

Korean democracy now faces a similar test.

The preparation of elections, ballot distribution procedures and decision-making processes on Election Day should be disclosed transparently. The causes of failure should be documented, responsibility clearly identified, and institutional safeguards strengthened. Standards for reserve ballot supplies and emergency response systems also deserve a comprehensive review.

The most important issue is not whether mistakes occurred. It is how institutions respond when they do. Germany and the United States provided their answers. Korea must now provide its own.

Opinion Desk [email protected]