Gerry Adams to run for President ?

Godge · 04-10-2013 2:29pm

Crooked Jack wrote: »

It doesnt need to though, it already recognises that being born in the north entitles you to citizenship and to be a part of the nation. So someone born in the north, whose whole family is and was from the north, with no links to anyone from down south, wouldnt have any Irish ancestory under your ridiculous parameters, but would still be entitled to citizenship. How can you not see that this alone illustrates that the north is indeed a special case and that this indicates that the constitution already considers those in the north to be Irish, whether they choose to embrace that or not. Somebody from Kent, with no link to Ireland, would not be entitled to citizenship in this way. Similarly, somebody from, for example, China, with no link to Ireland, could have a kid in the north and that kid would be entitled to Irish citizenship, but the same couldnt be said for that child if it were born in England, Scotland or Wales.
It's clearly a special case.

Yes, the north is a special case but it is a special case whereby people born in Northern Ireland have equal rights with people of Irish descent when it comes to citizenship. Article 2 says they are the same and they are citizens.

Therefore you cannot discriminate between the two groups.

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Article 3 also states:

Surely along these lines the presidency, or at least certain duties of the presidency, could be seen to constitute an all Ireland element, therefor entitling people to a vote.
You also need to step back from the letter of the law, so to speak, and look at the spirit of it. The president, regardless of what the constitution may hint at, has always been seen as and acted as the President of the entire nation and country. Not in a hostile or threatening manner to unionism, but in a way recognising the realities of Ireland's current state and the affinity the position holds with nationalists in the north. To ignore these aspects of the presidency and its power is to ignore reality.

The Presidency is a constitutional office set out in certain articles. Therefore what it is or can be is limited by those provisions.

So it is not possible to say that because some people believe the Presidency can be seen as something it is not that translates into a right to vote for it.

oscarBravo · 04-10-2013 2:31pm

Happyman42 wrote: »

Could be done in a number of ways, postal votes, selected polling stations. All depends on the co-operation of the Assembly.

Postal voting? So not only do we create an elite class of foreign-resident citizen, we create an elite class of voter that has voting privileges over and above that of the average Irish citizen - all the while undermining the sanctity of the secret ballot? No thanks.

The alternative is asking the government of another country to administer an election on our behalf. Yeah, not an attractive option either.

Take it as a given that the poll is going ahead. Why would you deny a selected group of Irish citizens on the Island a vote in the election of a president they see as theirs?

Because they live in a different country, and we don't allow citizens living in different countries to vote, and I don't hold Irish citizens living in Northern Ireland in higher esteem than Irish citizens living in other parts of the UK.

Your brother in Kent not getting the same priviledge is not a legitimate answer. Did he get to vote in the GFA referendums from Kent?

That's not a legitimate counter. The GFA referendum in Northern Ireland wasn't restricted to Irish citizens. He didn't get to vote in a GFA referendum, and NI residents didn't get to vote for the Mayor of London.

Crooked Jack · 04-10-2013 2:32pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

...but not to vote. But somebody born here, but living in Kent, is entitled to citizenship - but not, in your scenario, to vote. So you're asking to selectively enfranchise citizens living abroad in order to further your political agenda.

You are ignoring the already well established fact that the north is different and is indeed a special case. The constitution says so, the GFA says so. You're the only one being selective here.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Entitlement to vote doesn't arise from your desire for such an entitlement.

This is a pretty pathetic way of debating, pick out the bit you find easiest to defend against and ignore everything else. I mentioned this after I'd pointed out that the constitution could indeed be used to argue that the presidency or duties of the presidency have an all Ireland dimension and therefore, as it directly affects them, people in the north would be entitled to a vote on that basis.

oscarBravo wrote: »

The President is also the president of the country of which my brother in Kent holds a passport. That doesn't mean he gets a vote.

Again, you're ignoring the plain fact that the north is not treated the same as Britain. It is very, very different.

Crooked Jack · 04-10-2013 2:33pm

Godge wrote: »

Article 2 does not distinguish between the brother in Kent and the person born in Belfast. They have equal rights under our constitution.

Of course it does, why mention him otherwise

oscarBravo · 04-10-2013 2:42pm

Crooked Jack wrote: »

You are ignoring the already well established fact that the north is different and is indeed a special case. The constitution says so, the GFA says so. You're the only one being selective here.

The Constitution says that people born in Northern Ireland get to be citizens. That's all it says. You can hand-wave to your heart's content about how that clearly means that they are an extra-special type of citizen with privileges over and above all other citizens, but wishing - even wishing really, really hard - won't make it so.

This is a pretty pathetic way of debating, pick out the bit you find easiest to defend against and ignore everything else. I mentioned this after I'd pointed out that the constitution could indeed be used to argue that the presidency or duties of the presidency have an all Ireland dimension and therefore, as it directly affects them, people in the north would be entitled to a vote on that basis.

People in the north are entitled to vote on the basis set out in the constitution and legislation. You can use anything you want to argue that people in Northern Ireland are entitled to vote, but you'll still be wrong.

Again, you're ignoring the plain fact that the north is not treated the same as Britain. It is very, very different.

It certainly is - in a great many ways. I'm not convinced that those differences amount to a reason to create a class of super-citizen with extra special electoral privileges, and you're not convincing me. You're just repeating that Northern Ireland is different, therefore people living there magically get something you just happen to want them to have.

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Of course it does, why mention him otherwise

It doesn't mention him in any context to do with voting.

Happyman42 · 04-10-2013 2:43pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

The alternative is asking the government of another country to administer an election on our behalf. Yeah, not an attractive option either.

But not impossible either given new arrangements.

Because they live in a different country, and we don't allow citizens living in different countries to vote,

Again, it is proposed to give them a vote in the presidential elections because of their special status under the GFA. If that special status is given would you have any further objections, if so, what would they be?

That's not a legitimate counter. The GFA referendum in Northern Ireland wasn't restricted to Irish citizens. He didn't get to vote in a GFA referendum, and NI residents didn't get to vote for the Mayor of London.

Exactly, selecting a constituency amongst 'Irish citizens' is not without precedent. It's no different here, if a Unionist wishes to have a vote then they can, by applying for citizenship.

Happyman42 · 04-10-2013 2:50pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

The Constitution says that people born in Northern Ireland get to be citizens. That's all it says. You can hand-wave to your heart's content about how that clearly means that they are an extra-special type of citizen with privileges over and above all other citizens, but wishing - even wishing really, really hard - won't make it so. People in the north are entitled to vote on the basis set out in the constitution and legislation. You can use anything you want to argue that people in Northern Ireland are entitled to vote, but you'll still be wrong. It certainly is - in a great many ways. I'm not convinced that those differences amount to a reason to create a class of super-citizen with extra special electoral privileges, and you're not convincing me. You're just repeating that Northern Ireland is different, therefore people living there magically get something you just happen to want them to have.

It doesn't mention him in any context to do with voting.

Which bit of 'it is proposed to give them the privledge' do you not understand?

pablomakaveli · 04-10-2013 2:52pm

I'm also an Irish citizen living in the UK. Will i get a vote too?

I suppose given i'm in the wrong part of the UK i'd say no, not that i think i should have a vote anyway.

Giving people in NI a vote is ridiculous. It would see the tribal politics of NI being dragged into the Republic and the only party that would benefit is Sinn Fein which is why republicans are pushing hard for this.

There is no reason to give them a vote. The only arguments seem to be wishy washy romantic nonsense. They don't pay tax in the South, they're not resident in the South and they will not be affected as much by the results as people living in the South.

Tramps Like Us · 04-10-2013 2:53pm

I wonder how latvians all over the world manage to vote.

The partitionist mentality some have is rather funny, the mere suggestion that Irish people be treated as such infuriates them - they are best ignored, they are a very small minority

oscarBravo · 04-10-2013 2:57pm

Happyman42 wrote: »

But not impossible either given new arrangements.

I'm not saying it's impossible. I'm saying I wouldn't vote for a proposal to either give citizens in a different country an automatic postal vote, or to let the government of a different country run an election on behalf of our country.

Again, it is proposed to give them a vote in the presidential elections because of their special status under the GFA. If that special status is given would you have any further objections, if so, what would they be?

They don't have a special status under the GFA, other than the right to be citizens. They are still citizens living in a different country, and I wouldn't vote for a proposal to create tiers of foreign-resident citizens.

Exactly, selecting a constituency amongst 'Irish citizens' is not without precedent. It's no different here, if a Unionist wishes to have a vote then they can, by applying for citizenship.

You just said "exactly", and then said something directly contradictory to what I just said. The doublethink is breathtaking.

Happyman42 wrote: »

Which bit of 'it is proposed to give them the privledge' do you not understand?

Which bit of "I would vote against that proposal" are you refusing to understand?

Happyman42 · 04-10-2013 2:58pm

Tramps Like Us wrote: »

I wonder how latvians all over the world manage to vote.

The partitionist mentality some have is rather funny, the mere suggestion that Irish people be treated as such infuriates them - they are best ignored, they are a very small minority

I think we all know why the Southern establishment don't want to give ex-pats a vote.:) But that's a whole different thread.

oscarBravo · 04-10-2013 2:58pm

Tramps Like Us wrote: »

I wonder how latvians all over the world manage to vote.

Do they have different voting rights depending on how close they live to a border with Latvia?

The partitionist mentality some have is rather funny, the mere suggestion that Irish people be treated as such infuriates them - they are best ignored, they are a very small minority

I'd argue with you, except you seem to be busy arguing with a straw man. When you actually want to discuss the points others are making, come back to me.

Godge · 04-10-2013 3:53pm

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Of course it does, why mention him otherwise

I am really beginning to think you don't understand English.

The same issue was coming up in the overseas voting rights thread.

Article 2 describes how one is a citizen. Once a citizen, it doesn't matter how you are one (and that includes naturalised citizens) you can only vote if you are resident in Ireland (the 26 Counties for the avoidance of doubt).

You cannot distinguish between how you became a citizen and there is no special status accorded by Article 2. If you are living in Ireland you get the vote if you are a citizen.

Crooked Jack · 04-10-2013 4:05pm

Godge wrote: »

I am really beginning to think you don't understand English.

The same issue was coming up in the overseas voting rights thread.

Article 2 describes how one is a citizen. Once a citizen, it doesn't matter how you are one (and that includes naturalised citizens) you can only vote if you are resident in Ireland (the 26 Counties for the avoidance of doubt).

You're ignoring the possibilities opened up in Article 3.

Godge wrote: »

You cannot distinguish between how you became a citizen and there is no special status accorded by Article 2. If you are living in Ireland you get the vote if you are a citizen.

I cant understand English? I dropped out of this conversation because you and Oscar Bravo are just repeating the same thing over and over again no matter what is put to you.
We're both clearly coming away with very different interpretations of articles two and three. They're quite broad and I'm reading them with an open mind to all the possibilities they contain. You and oscar are reading them and moulding the words so they fit into you narrow partitionist view.
This is going round in circles and I'm bored of it.

oscarBravo · 04-10-2013 4:18pm

Crooked Jack wrote: »

You're ignoring the possibilities opened up in Article 3.

Article 3 doesn't mention, imply, suggest, or open up the possibility of voting rights for Irish citizens living in another country. I know I'm repeating myself, but it doesn't seem to be sinking in: wanting an article of the constitution to mean something doesn't make it mean that, no matter how much you want it.

I cant understand English? I dropped out of this conversation because you and Oscar Bravo are just repeating the same thing over and over again no matter what is put to you.

That's because all that's being put to us is the proposal that Irish citizens in Northern Ireland be given a completely new set of rights that are unique to them and over and above the rights afforded to all other citizens of Ireland, and what we're repeating in response to that is "no thanks".

We're both clearly coming away with very different interpretations of articles two and three. They're quite broad and I'm reading them with an open mind to all the possibilities they contain.

They don't contain the possibility of voting rights for Irish citizens abroad. You can either keep waving your hands and talking about how nice it would be if they contained that possibility, or you can explain how the three short paragraphs in question could be interpreted to create a special class of citizen with additional voting privileges.

You and oscar are reading them and moulding the words so they fit into you narrow partitionist view.

There's no moulding required. Articles 2 and 3 don't confer the right to vote on Irish citizens in Northern Ireland until they become resident in the Republic.

Godge · 04-10-2013 4:37pm

Crooked Jack wrote: »

You're ignoring the possibilities opened up in Article 3.

There are no possibilities in Article 3.

Article 3 enshrines the status quo until otherwise changed by a majority of the population both north and south. That status quo is that the Queen is the equivalent for Northern Ireland of the President for Ireland. There is no bit of Article 3 that creates the dreamy sensation that the President is for the whole island.

Article 3 (2) states:

"Institutions with executive powers and functions that are shared between those jurisdictions may be established by their respective responsible authorities for stated purposes and may exercise powers and functions in respect of all or any part of the island."

That section enables institutions with executive powers to be created - North/South bodies in other words. Now a President is something different - s/he is a Constitutional office. Where does Article 3 allow for the extension of the powers of a Constitutional office?

Nowhere. Article 3 does not allow us to establish constituencies for election to the Dail in Northern Ireland, neither does it allow our judges exercise jurisdiction unilaterally over Northern Ireland because those are not institutions with executive powers. Legal language is quite precise and doesn't allow for reading with an open mind.

There is no government that will suggest a change to Articles 2 and 3 without a GFA type agreement with the UK.

Crooked Jack · 04-10-2013 4:53pm

Article 2

It is the entitlement and birthright of every person born in the island of Ireland, which includes its islands and seas, to be part of the Irish Nation.

Ok, are you with me so far?

That is also the entitlement of all persons otherwise qualified in accordance with law to be citizens of Ireland.

See, if people in the north were just citizens the same way that someone with an Irish passport living overseas is, then why specifically mention the north (ie - the island of Ireland) at all in the very first line. This makes it quite clear that people in the north are considered by the constitution to be more than just passport holders.

Article 3
Institutions with executive powers and functions that are shared between those jurisdictions may be established by their respective responsible authorities for stated purposes and may exercise powers and functions in respect of all or any part of the island.

Now are you seriously suggesting, now that the constitutional convention has voted overwhelmingly to extend voting rights to the north, that members of the Dail could use this to interpret either the role of the president or functions of the president as having an all Ireland dimension and therefor meaning people in the north would be entitled to a vote.

This is not hand waving or wishful thinking. Academic and legal experts at the constitutional convention spent two days debating this issue and overwhelmingly came to the conclusion that it was not only possible but desirable.

https://www.constitution.ie/NewsDetails.aspx?nid=90acb1d8-4d29-e311-96d5-005056a32ee4

You'll forgive me if I take the word of experts with access to all the information over the narrow interpretation of some fanatical partitionists on the internet.
The constitution is deliberately vague on these issues to allow these type of changes and movements as the situation in the north progresses.

oscarBravo · 04-10-2013 5:11pm

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Article 2

It is the entitlement and birthright of every person born in the island of Ireland, which includes its islands and seas, to be part of the Irish Nation.

Ok, are you with me so far?

Yup.

That is also the entitlement of all persons otherwise qualified in accordance with law to be citizens of Ireland.

See, if people in the north were just citizens the same way that someone with an Irish passport living overseas is, then why specifically mention the north (ie - the island of Ireland) at all in the very first line. This makes it quite clear that people in the north are considered by the constitution to be more than just passport holders.

You're tripping over your own circular logic. Article 3 defines the right of anyone born on the island to be an Irish citizen. It needs to enumerate that right very specifically, because there's a jurisdiction on the island that isn't part of the Republic of Ireland, and - as such - in the absence of Article 3, people born in Northern Ireland wouldn't be entitled to Irish citizenship.

Now, you say that such people are "more than just passport holders" - true; they are natural-born citizens of this Republic, just as my brother is. They also live in the United Kingdom, just as my brother does. It has yet to be explained to me why they should become a class of super-citizen and be granted the right to vote while not resident in the Republic, while my brother is denied that privilege.

Article 3
Institutions with executive powers and functions that are shared between those jurisdictions may be established by their respective responsible authorities for stated purposes and may exercise powers and functions in respect of all or any part of the island.

Now are you seriously suggesting, now that the constitutional convention has voted overwhelmingly to extend voting rights to the north, that members of the Dail could use this to interpret either the role of the president or functions of the president as having an all Ireland dimension and therefor meaning people in the north would be entitled to a vote.

First, you're so busy bolding part of the text that you've skipped the part to which it refers. Institutions may be established by the governments of the UK and of Ireland, and they make exercise powers and functions. It may have escaped your notice, but the Presidency has already been established, and it doesn't fall under the remit of Article 3.2.

Second - you think the Dail gets to interpret the role of the President? Seriously?

This is not hand waving or wishful thinking. Academic and legal experts at the constitutional convention spent two days debating this issue and overwhelmingly came to the conclusion that it was not only possible but desirable.

https://www.constitution.ie/NewsDetails.aspx?nid=90acb1d8-4d29-e311-96d5-005056a32ee4

You'll forgive me if I take the word of experts with access to all the information over the narrow interpretation of some fanatical partitionists on the internet.

It's a pretty clear sign that you know you're on weak ground when you can't help but call people who disagree with you names. Fanatical? For not wanting our democracy undermined just to suit your narrow republican agenda? Please.

The constitution is deliberately vague on these issues to allow these type of changes and movements as the situation in the north progresses.

It has clearly escaped your notice that the purpose of the Constitutional Convention is to propose changes to the constitution. If you're so all-fired certain that Northern Ireland residents have the right to vote today, why are you pointing to the conclusions of a group who have suggested a constitutional amendment to allow it to happen?

Also, have you noticed that the Convention recommended extending the vote to all citizens living abroad, as opposed to your insistence that Irish citizens in Northern Ireland be granted extraordinary voting privileges?

Finally, as you'd know if you were paying attention, I'm perfectly aware that it's possible to amend the constitution to allow non-residents to vote. I'm making the point that there are arguments against such an amendment, some of which the Convention didn't trouble themselves to address.

Happyman42 · 04-10-2013 5:21pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

Yup. You're tripping over your own circular logic. Article 3 defines the right of anyone born on the island to be an Irish citizen. It needs to enumerate that right very specifically, because there's a jurisdiction on the island that isn't part of the Republic of Ireland, and - as such - in the absence of Article 3, people born in Northern Ireland wouldn't be entitled to Irish citizenship.

Now, you say that such people are "more than just passport holders" - true; they are natural-born citizens of this Republic, just as my brother is. They also live in the United Kingdom, just as my brother does. It has yet to be explained to me why they should become a class of super-citizen and be granted the right to vote while not resident in the Republic, while my brother is denied that privilege. First, you're so busy bolding part of the text that you've skipped the part to which it refers. Institutions may be established by the governments of the UK and of Ireland, and they make exercise powers and functions. It may have escaped your notice, but the Presidency has already been established, and it doesn't fall under the remit of Article 3.2.

Second - you think the Dail gets to interpret the role of the President? Seriously? It's a pretty clear sign that you know you're on weak ground when you can't help but call people who disagree with you names. Fanatical? For not wanting our democracy undermined just to suit your narrow republican agenda? Please. It has clearly escaped your notice that the purpose of the Constitutional Convention is to propose changes to the constitution. If you're so all-fired certain that Northern Ireland residents have the right to vote today, why are you pointing to the conclusions of a group who have suggested a constitutional amendment to allow it to happen?

Also, have you noticed that the Convention recommended extending the vote to all citizens living abroad, as opposed to your insistence that Irish citizens in Northern Ireland be granted extraordinary voting privileges?

Finally, as you'd know if you were paying attention, I'm perfectly aware that it's possible to amend the constitution to allow non-residents to vote. I'm making the point that there are arguments against such an amendment, some of which the Convention didn't trouble themselves to address.

You say all this, despite the fact that the question about NI citizens rights was discussed and voted on as a 'separate' issue.

oscarBravo · 04-10-2013 5:52pm

Happyman42 wrote: »

You say all this, despite the fact that the question about NI citizens rights was discussed and voted on as a 'separate' issue.

Not entirely. The numbers in favour of allowing citizens in Northern Ireland to vote are broadly in line with the numbers in favour of allowing citizens outside the state to vote. Well, duh: if you're supportive of allowing citizens to vote even if they're not resident in the state, you can't exactly exclude citizens in Northern Ireland, can you?

If the results had been markedly different between those polls, you might have a point.

All of which is tangential to the point that the Convention is just a small group of people who have discussed the issue and arrived at a conclusion. I happen to disagree with them, and I somehow doubt you'd be citing them as an authority if they had arrived at a conclusion that was at odds with your views. Apart from anything else, they waved aside the actual practical aspects of how the voting would take place - a question that seems to generate rather a lot of hand-waving.

Happyman42 · 04-10-2013 6:11pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

Not entirely. The numbers in favour of allowing citizens in Northern Ireland to vote are broadly in line with the numbers in favour of allowing citizens outside the state to vote. Well, duh: if you're supportive of allowing citizens to vote even if they're not resident in the state, you can't exactly exclude citizens in Northern Ireland, can you?

If the results had been markedly different between those polls, you might have a point.

All of which is tangential to the point that the Convention is just a small group of people who have discussed the issue and arrived at a conclusion. I happen to disagree with them, and I somehow doubt you'd be citing them as an authority if they had arrived at a conclusion that was at odds with your views. Apart from anything else, they waved aside the actual practical aspects of how the voting would take place - a question that seems to generate rather a lot of hand-waving.

So that is just another way of saying the proverbial No, No No.
It was discussed as a separate and special case and a vote was taken. What is it you are looking for?
The next step is a proposal to be formed by the government and it should them be put to the people to decide like the Seanad Referendum today.

oscarBravo · 04-10-2013 6:16pm

Happyman42 wrote: »

So that is just another way of saying the proverbial No, No No.

Lazy caricature.

It was discussed as a separate and special case and a vote was taken. What is it you are looking for?

I've answered this already. If you like, I'll answer it again and give you another opportunity to ignore it.

The next step is a proposal to be formed by the government and it should them be put to the people to decide like the Seanad Referendum today.

It's up to the Oireachtas to decide whether to refer it to the people. Before they do, they'd better put a damn sight more thought into the practical implications of it than the Convention did (and than you seem prepared to do), and even then I reserve the right to oppose the move, just as you have the right to support it.

Happyman42 · 04-10-2013 6:28pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

Lazy caricature. I've answered this already. If you like, I'll answer it again and give you another opportunity to ignore it. It's up to the Oireachtas to decide whether to refer it to the people. Before they do, they'd better put a damn sight more thought into the practical implications of it than the Convention did (and than you seem prepared to do), and even then I reserve the right to oppose the move, just as you have the right to support it.

So that is a No No No and a threat then?

Is it not a bit arrogant to assume that only you have thought it through?

The practicalities are surmountable and are being used as a red herring.

oscarBravo · 04-10-2013 6:31pm

Happyman42 wrote: »

So that is a No No No and a threat then?

Threat?! What in the name of the Teapot are you wittering on about now?

Is it not a bit arrogant to assume that only you have thought it through?

It certainly would be an arrogant thing to assume. You should berate that straw man of yours very severely for his arrogance.

The practicalities are surmountable...

That's the very archetype of hand-waving.

Mr Cumulonimbus · 04-10-2013 7:06pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

Apart from anything else, they waved aside the actual practical aspects of how the voting would take place

Ah come now oscar, I think you're manufacturing problems for the purposes of this particular discussion.

You can vote when even not on the planet! Texas state law addresses this issue with regards to particular US citizens not within the jurisdiction on election day.

http://info.sos.state.tx.us/pls/pub/readtac$ext.TacPage?sl=T&app=9&p_dir=N&p_rloc=82071&p_tloc=&p_ploc=1&pg=3&p_tac=&ti=1&pt=4&ch=81&rl=35

An encrypted electronic ballot is beamed up to the space station. A separate email with credentials for authentication is sent to each astronaut that will be voting. The astronauts input their credentials, fill out their ballots and beam it back to mission control. Mission control delivers the ballots to the county clerks office where they are decrypted and counted.

http://www.openideo.com/open/voting/inspiration/voting-from-space

Deedsie · 04-10-2013 7:09pm

Quite the hornets nest I stirred here the other night when I revived this thread. I am in favour of extending voting rights for Irish citizens living in Northern Ireland and abroad for the President of the Irish nation. Why waste space on the constitution at all mentioning the island or the diaspora? If we don't fulfil the blueprint of our country, what is the point of it?

Happyman42 · 04-10-2013 7:10pm

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

Ah come now oscar, I think you're manufacturing problems for the purposes of this particular discussion.

You can vote when even not on the planet! Texas state law addresses this issue with regards to particular US citizens not within the jurisdiction on election day.

http://info.sos.state.tx.us/pls/pub/readtac$ext.TacPage?sl=T&app=9&p_dir=N&p_rloc=82071&p_tloc=&p_ploc=1&pg=3&p_tac=&ti=1&pt=4&ch=81&rl=35

An encrypted electronic ballot is beamed up to the space station. A separate email with credentials for authentication is sent to each astronaut that will be voting. The astronauts input their credentials, fill out their ballots and beam it back to mission control. Mission control delivers the ballots to the county clerks office where they are decrypted and counted.

http://www.openideo.com/open/voting/inspiration/voting-from-space

I didn't mention 'technlogy' as it might not be understood by the posters.

Manassas61 · 04-10-2013 7:18pm

Will this just be for the Irish President and not normal elections?

SeosamhNYC · 04-10-2013 7:21pm

If I'm reading the arguments correctly, because 2 and 3 grant those born on the island of Ireland Irish citizenship, this should therefore allow those citizens residing in Northern Ireland (as has been pointed out and despite what many of us may want, still a separate country) a vote in Irish Presidential elections? I don't think that was what the framers had in mind at all. The original article 2 defined the "national territory" as the entire island of Ireland and the original article 3 spoke to the fact that until the entire national territory was reintegrated (i.e.; unification), laws enacted by the government would only impact the 26 counties, notwithstanding the definition of the national territory as the whole island. When they were scrapped, you would have to have addressed whether and how those in the North could be citizens as previously, by virtue of being born in the "national territory" (the whole island) they would have been entitled to citizenship. Once that was gone, the national territory was only the 26 counties and then, the citizenship rules would apply to the North - birth in the "national territory" (26 counties) or descent from an Irish born parent or grandparent. There was nothing special about it - it was tying up one of the loose ends that resulted from doing away with 2 and 3.

As has been stated, you cannot set of tiers of citizenship - 1st tier resident citizens; 2nd tier citizens residing in the North; 3rd tier the rest of us. Not to mention native born vs. citizen by parent or grandparent or marriage, etc..

I don't think any non-resident citizen - including myself - should have a vote. I may whinge and moan here about how a vote turned out, but no doubt, I'd be doing that anyway if I was at home. I'm not living there, the laws, policies, etc. enacted or not likely won't impact me or those in the North or in Dubai or in Kent, so why should I or any non-resident citizen have the right to vote? But having said this, if there is some movement to give voting rights to those citizens residing in the North, you can be sure myself and many, many other citizens living abroad will insist on the same.

By the way, as this thread started as a discussion on Adams for President, for what it is worth, I'd vote NO. No to him or McGuinness. We all know they're lying through their teeth about the roles they played in the army and I for one still wonder how two men who held some of the highest ranks/offices in the army and SF have managed to live such charmed lives. That's just my thinking anyway.

Deedsie · 04-10-2013 7:34pm

Manassas61 wrote: »

Will this just be for the Irish President and not normal elections?

Wouldn't be feasible to be for any other elections than Presidential. Perhaps an all island civic forum could be implemented eventually and that could be an all island vote... But this would be a toothless entity if it ever did get set up.

I would personally vote against citizens living outside Ireland (RoI) in any other elections.

oscarBravo · 04-10-2013 7:52pm

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

Ah come now oscar, I think you're manufacturing problems for the purposes of this particular discussion.

I'm not inventing problems; you're inventing solutions that are at odds with our current electoral system, which mandates a private ballot held in a public place, for very good reasons.

You can vote when even not on the planet! Texas state law addresses this issue with regards to particular US citizens not within the jurisdiction on election day.

If we're holding up the US as a model for how to run elections, my "no" vote becomes somewhere between a "hell, no" and an "over my dead body".

Happyman42 wrote: »

I didn't mention 'technlogy' as it might not be understood by the posters.

I'm always fascinated by the fact that it tends to be the people who best understand technology that are most wary about it being offered as a panacea.

It may have escaped your notice, but we tried using technology in elections in this country. It was an unmitigated catastrophe. Suggesting that you don't need to worry about the details of voting outside the jurisdiction because technology innit indicates that you either haven't thought the problem through, or don't have the requisite knowledge to do so.

Happyman42 · 04-10-2013 8:36pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm not inventing problems; you're inventing solutions that are at odds with our current electoral system, which mandates a private ballot held in a public place, for very good reasons. If we're holding up the US as a model for how to run elections, my "no" vote becomes somewhere between a "hell, no" and an "over my dead body".

I'm always fascinated by the fact that it tends to be the people who best understand technology that are most wary about it being offered as a panacea.

It may have escaped your notice, but we tried using technology in elections in this country. It was an unmitigated catastrophe. Suggesting that you don't need to worry about the details of voting outside the jurisdiction because technology innit indicates that you either haven't thought the problem through, or don't have the requisite knowledge to do so.

All we need to do is appoint somebody competent. people vote from outside juristictions all the time. It isn't an insurmountable problem regardless of you clinging to it as one.

oscarBravo · 04-10-2013 8:50pm

Happyman42 wrote: »

All we need to do is appoint somebody competent. people vote from outside juristictions all the time. It isn't an insurmountable problem regardless of you clinging to it as one.

/handwave

Mr Cumulonimbus · 04-10-2013 9:43pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

you're inventing solutions that are at odds with our current electoral system, which mandates a private ballot held in a public place, for very good reasons.

Solutions that are needed if voting here for Irish citizens living outside the state becomes a reality.

If we're holding up the US as a model for how to run elections, my "no" vote becomes somewhere between a "hell, no" and an "over my dead body".

There haven't been any "hanging chads" yet discovered in the example I gave. I was highlighting the technology of a particular form of voting itself, not it's origins.

but we tried using technology in elections in this country. It was an unmitigated catastrophe.

So you're a "paper and pencil" man regardless then?

Suggesting that you don't need to worry about the details of voting outside the jurisdiction because technology innit indicates that you either haven't thought the problem through, or don't have the requisite knowledge to do so.

If the Irish electorate vote for this, then will such concerns stop the process being implemented?

oscarBravo · 04-10-2013 11:24pm

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

Solutions that are needed if voting here for Irish citizens living outside the state becomes a reality.

Yes. Such solutions will damage the integrity of the electoral process. That's the trade-off we're being asked to make. If the only thing that matters is letting people in Northern Ireland vote, then sure: the integrity of the electoral process is a price you'll be willing to pay.

There haven't been any "hanging chads" yet discovered in the example I gave. I was highlighting the technology of a particular form of voting itself, not it's origins.

Tell you what: if voting abroad involves everybody having to use a single computer that's managed by an organisation that does mission-critical software better than almost anybody in the world, then I'll be happy with the integrity of that solution.

So you're a "paper and pencil" man regardless then?

It's the best way to implement our electoral system, so why not?

If the Irish electorate vote for this, then will such concerns stop the process being implemented?

If such concerns haven't been addressed in advance of a referendum, I'll be loudly leading the charge for a "no" vote.

Happyman42 · 05-10-2013 12:16pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

/handwave

What does that ^ even mean, only that you have run out of credible argument.
Just because an incompetent TD and an incompetent dept. messed up doesn't negate the benefits of what technology has to offer. Unless you want to insist on being a Neanderthal.
Again I say it's just a petty argument to mask a No, No, No Never political philosophy, that is devoid of progressive thought.

Mr Cumulonimbus · 05-10-2013 12:24pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

Yes. Such solutions will damage the integrity of the electoral process. That's the trade-off we're being asked to make. If the only thing that matters is letting people in Northern Ireland vote, then sure: the integrity of the electoral process is a price you'll be willing to pay.

.............that's managed by an organisation that does mission-critical software better than almost anybody in the world, then I'll be happy with the integrity of that solution.

How, if it's of NASA level standards?

PeadarCo · 05-10-2013 12:44pm

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

How, if it's of NASA level standards?

What Oscarbravo is saying computers can be hacked. Pen and paper combined with independent observers is far harder to interfere with. Look at Adobe last week. Any computer can be hacked given enough time and resources.

Mr Cumulonimbus · 05-10-2013 1:07pm

PeadarCo wrote: »

What Oscarbravo is saying computers can be hacked. Pen and paper combined with independent observers is far harder to interfere with. Look at Adobe last week. Any computer can be hacked given enough time and resources.

Yes, but as an issue on its own should it stop absentee voting, especially considering many countries currently operate such procedures? UK citizens for example can vote for 15 years after leaving the UK in UK & EU parliamentary elections.

oscarBravo · 05-10-2013 1:27pm

Happyman42 wrote: »

What does that ^ even mean, only that you have run out of credible argument.

Are you asking because you genuinely don't know what I mean by the term, and can't be bothered looking it up, or are you - ironically - engaging in even further hand-waving?

Just because an incompetent TD and an incompetent dept. messed up doesn't negate the benefits of what technology has to offer. Unless you want to insist on being a Neanderthal.

Sorry, but that just demonstrates that you don't understand the issues involved in designing a secure electronic voting system. It's pretty much an insurmountable problem.

Now, you'll almost certainly engage in yet more hand-waving about how electronic voting is one of those minor details we can figure out later, but that just demonstrates that you haven't thought about the problem - and believe me, I have.

Again I say it's just a petty argument to mask a No, No, No Never political philosophy, that is devoid of progressive thought.

And that's just a lazy ad-hominem attack to avoid having to contemplate the idea that anyone who doesn't subscribe completely to your single-minded political philosophy is a "neandarthal", a "partitionist", and whatever other names you feel the need to call people who disagree with you.

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

How, if it's of NASA level standards?

This may come as a shock to you, but NASA wouldn't be implementing an electronic voting system for us.

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

Yes, but as an issue on its own should it stop absentee voting, especially considering many countries currently operate such procedures? UK citizens for example can vote for 15 years after leaving the UK in UK & EU parliamentary elections.

Let's bring this back yet again to first principles. Happyman42 believes that a referendum to allow people in Northern Ireland to vote would unquestionably pass, because there couldn't possibly be any conceivable objection to such a proposition. I've pointed out that there are, in fact, conceivable objections to the proposition. Now, I've never claimed that the objections are insurmountable - that's just one of a number of straw men that get ushered into the fray any time anyone has the temerity to challenge the gospel of united Ireland republicanism - I've simply pointed out that it's not a foregone conclusion that people would vote for the proposition, as hard as that concept may be for some to wrap their heads around.

pablomakaveli · 05-10-2013 1:35pm

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

Yes, but as an issue on its own should it stop absentee voting, especially considering many countries currently operate such procedures? UK citizens for example can vote for 15 years after leaving the UK in UK & EU parliamentary elections.

That doesn't mean it's a good idea though. It's actually quite unfair to give someone who has lived outside the country for years a vote in a parliamentary election when the outcome will unlikely impact on them if they continue to live outside the country.

Mr Cumulonimbus · 05-10-2013 1:41pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

Sorry, but that just demonstrates that you don't understand the issues involved in designing a secure electronic voting system. It's pretty much an insurmountable problem.

So we give up then? Who says it has to be an uniquely electronic based one? Are you opposed to the postal voting system used in this jurisdiction by certain types of voter living here?

This may come as a shock to you, but NASA wouldn't be implementing an electronic voting system for us.

I said "NASA level", not meaning NASA itself.

Let's bring this back yet again to first principles. Happyman42 believes that a referendum to allow people in Northern Ireland to vote would unquestionably pass, because there couldn't possibly be any conceivable objection to such a proposition. I've pointed out that there are, in fact, conceivable objections to the proposition. Now, I've never claimed that the objections are insurmountable - that's just one of a number of straw men that get ushered into the fray any time anyone has the temerity to challenge the gospel of united Ireland republicanism - I've simply pointed out that it's not a foregone conclusion that people would vote for the proposition, as hard as that concept may be for some to wrap their heads around.

Irish citizens anywhere in the world (and above it if one eventually goes into space!) for me.

oscarBravo · 05-10-2013 1:49pm

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

So we give up then? Who says it has to be an uniquely electronic based one? Are you opposed to the postal voting system used in this jurisdiction by certain types of voter living here?

I'm opposed to anything that damages the integrity of our secret ballot, and the widespread adoption of postal voting certainly does that.

I said "NASA level", not meaning NASA itself.

Do you have any idea how NASA develops software?

Not that it matters, because electronic voting will never happen in the controlled environment of an orbital research laboratory.

Secure electronic voting is an intractable problem. It pretty much can't be done. Similarly, postal voting introduces insecurities into the electoral process. So that's the question you'd be asking the electorate: are you prepared to compromise the integrity of our electoral process in order to let Northern Ireland citizens vote?

Irish citizens anywhere in the world (and above it if one eventually goes into space!) for me.

So you would be happy to compromise the integrity of the electoral system to let them vote - fair enough, but don't assume everyone else would feel the same way.

Mr Cumulonimbus · 05-10-2013 2:18pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm opposed to anything that damages the integrity of our secret ballot, and the widespread adoption of postal voting certainly does that. Do you have any idea how NASA develops software?

Not that it matters, because electronic voting will never happen in the controlled environment of an orbital research laboratory.

Already happened for astronauts that want to vote while in space during US elections. If an Irish astronaut wants to vote in a future Irish election we can give NASA a ring on how to do it! Also how does the complexities of how NASA writes its software become an impediment on how they introduced this voting procedure for their astronauts? As I said before you keep looking for problems.

http://www.space.com/6052-astronauts-vote-space-station.html

Secure electronic voting is an intractable problem. It pretty much can't be done. Similarly, postal voting introduces insecurities into the electoral process. So that's the question you'd be asking the electorate: are you prepared to compromise the integrity of our electoral process in order to let Northern Ireland citizens vote? So you would be happy to compromise the integrity of the electoral system to let them vote - fair enough, but don't assume everyone else would feel the same way.

You seem to see this as an intractable problem, I dont. So you would abolish all forms of absentee voting currently in place as you dont think they are secure enough?

Also it's not correct to say people living in NI can't vote in elections here. NUI and TCD graduates resident in NI are entitled to a vote in elections to Seanad Eireann according to Sean Barratt in a piece in today's Irish Times. Article 18 in the constitution deals with SE.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/senator-calls-on-taoiseach-to-resign-over-20m-ego-trip-1.1551731

oscarBravo · 05-10-2013 3:18pm

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

Already happened for astronauts that want to vote while in space during US elections. If an Irish astronaut wants to vote in a future Irish election we can give NASA a ring on how to do it! Also how does the complexities of how NASA writes its software become an impediment on how they introduced this voting procedure for their astronauts? As I said before you keep looking for problems.

I don't know if you're being deliberately obtuse in order to keep arguing for the sake of it, but I'll clarify: if electronic voting is introduced for Irish citizens abroad, that voting won't be taking place in the ISS, but in much less secure environments.

You seem to see this as an intractable problem, I dont.

Then you haven't given it as much thought as I have. I've been designing computer systems since 1987. I was tangentially involved in the process of evaluating the security of the e-voting fiasco we happily failed to introduce here. I've studied the problems inherent in electronic voting as implemented all over the world.

But apparently I'm wrong, and musha it'll be grand.

So you would abolish all forms of absentee voting currently in place as you dont think they are secure enough?

I didn't say that. You seem to be subscribing to the fallacy that if it's possible to secure a small number of entrances, then it's equally easy to secure a large number of entrances, which is self-evidently untrue. Absentee voting is a weak point in our voting system, but it's limited in scope. Opening up absentee voting to a wider electorate by definition weakens the security of the ballot.

Tell me: do you understand why it is that we vote through the mechanism of a public secret ballot?

Mr Cumulonimbus · 05-10-2013 3:43pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

I don't know if you're being deliberately obtuse in order to keep arguing for the sake of it, but I'll clarify: if electronic voting is introduced for Irish citizens abroad, that voting won't be taking place in the ISS, but in much less secure environments.

Obviously. I'm just highlighting what's possible when a problem is seen.

Then you haven't given it as much thought as I have. I've been designing computer systems since 1987. I was tangentially involved in the process of evaluating the security of the e-voting fiasco we happily failed to introduce here. I've studied the problems inherent in electronic voting as implemented all over the world.

But apparently I'm wrong, and musha it'll be grand.

Never said you were wrong. I'm just trying to see it from an optimistic point of view. As said previously, if it's okayed in any future referendum a system has to come in to enable it's implementation.

I didn't say that. You seem to be subscribing to the fallacy that if it's possible to secure a small number of entrances, then it's equally easy to secure a large number of entrances, which is self-evidently untrue. Absentee voting is a weak point in our voting system, but it's limited in scope. Opening up absentee voting to a wider electorate by definition weakens the security of the ballot.

Understood, but I don't think it's a valid enough reason to throw out the concept of absentee voting because it can't be delivered to 100% perfection. You said you were happy with the paper and pencil solution. What about the human error inherent in the counting of said paper votes? It's not 100% accurate either when you look at recounts etc.

Tell me: do you understand why it is that we vote through the mechanism of a public secret ballot?

I do, but more than one system should be available, if needed (to replace postal voting for those who can attend a voting centre in person?), for its safe delivery don't you think?

oscarBravo · 05-10-2013 4:42pm

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

Obviously. I'm just highlighting what's possible when a problem is seen.

What's possible and what's feasible are two completely different animals.

Never said you were wrong. I'm just trying to see it from an optimistic point of view.

I know people who approach systems design from an optimistic point of view. It's a sure-fire way to end up with a broken system. If you're designing a system from any point of view other than extreme paranoia, you're doing it wrong.

As said previously, if it's okayed in any future referendum a system has to come in to enable it's implementation.

Yes. And that's one of my reasons for opposing the idea.

Understood, but I don't think it's a valid enough reason to throw out the concept of absentee voting because it can't be delivered to 100% perfection. You said you were happy with the paper and pencil solution. What about the human error inherent in the counting of said paper votes? It's not 100% accurate either when you look at recounts etc.

I've had that argument with someone else here before - the argument goes something like "our current system isn't perfect, therefore it's OK to make it worse". That's a non-sequitur in my book.

I do, but more than one system should be available, if needed (to replace postal voting for those who can attend a voting centre in person?), for its safe delivery don't you think?

I have yet to be convinced that the need for it would outweigh the risks it introduces.

Mr Cumulonimbus · 05-10-2013 5:08pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

the argument goes something like "our current system isn't perfect, therefore it's OK to make it worse".

So in that case, our current system only has a certain level of integrity, which you are happy with?

Also the Seanad stays, so TCD & NUI graduates resident in NI plus anywhere else it seems (who are Irish citizens) can continue to vote in elections here. So if some NI residents can vote here, why not others?

oscarBravo · 05-10-2013 6:26pm

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

So in that case, our current system only has a certain level of integrity, which you are happy with?

I'm not sure why you keep inventing positions of mine to argue with. As I've said over and over and over and over again, I don't want to see our electoral system made any worse. That doesn't mean I don't want to see it made better.

Also the Seanad stays, so TCD & NUI graduates resident in NI plus anywhere else it seems (who are Irish citizens) can continue to vote in elections here. So if some NI residents can vote here, why not others?

They can't "vote in elections here", they can vote for Seanad candidates. Are you under the illusion that the article in the constitution that mandates postal voting for the Seanad somehow magically applies to other elections? Is this the sort of "it would suit my argument if the constitution meant this, therefore it means this" argument we've seen already in this thread?

Mr Cumulonimbus · 05-10-2013 6:36pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

They can't "vote in elections here", they can vote for Seanad candidates.

Ok, strictly speaking they can't vote here in a geographical sense of attending an actual polling station. But certain classes of non-resident Irish citizens can participate in Irish elections via the postal system of voting.

it would suit my argument if the constitution meant this, therefore it means this

Whats your point? To repeat, certain non-resident Irish citizens can vote in elections here, via the postal voting system.

Gerry Adams to run for President ?

Comments