no E-voting for you!

Spacedog

E-voting's out this june...

http://www.rte.ie/news/2004/0430/evoting.html

serves then right for not developing an open source system, begging for trouble imo!

Villain

See here:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=157499

arcadegame2004

A pity. But then I suppose they couldn't risk using it if the presently proposed system had flaws. I don't think the paper-trail issue is important. The paper is the annoying aspect of the present system, leading to endless recounts and legal challenges. I hope, for that reason, that they eventually come up with a foll-proof E-voting system to end the laborium of election recounts.

flogen

not to get into the technical side or anything, but FF were fools for saying they were going to use this before any commission was setup on it. If theyd sat on the fence, said they were thinking about it, and running tests and then this report came out, they would get off scot-free. Instead they jumped the gun demanded it was to be used, said it was flawless and now have to go 180 on it... serves them right tbh.

Flogen

Karoma

hurrah!
also on:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/04/30/ireland_evote/

secret_squirrel

Thank god it got squashed. Evoting has to be open and as transparent as possible.

What I want to know is why wasnt the Aussie model followed? They managed to develop an open source system from scratch in 6 months at the cost ofr $125k. (see here. And we've already pissed €40m up the wall. Heads should roll.

ressem

For a machine that's to have been selling for years on the continent, even the basic obvious hardware precautions didn't seem to be met
http://www.evoting.cs.may.ie/Documents/ZerflowReport.pdf

like actually marking the Cast Vote button as such, or stopping someone from pasting on their own ballot sheet, console that could be opened using common keys, data stored as plaintext.

Not really suprising then that the software and procedures shows some flaws.

From today's report:
There's been no independent end-to-end testing of the system that we'd be using.
...there appears to have been no systematic testing and certification of the “hardening” of the PCs notwithstanding their susceptibility to either inadvertent error or deliberate manipulation by those with access to them;

And they haven't even been provided with the full source code yet, 2 months after the commission was founded.

Cork

It is a pity that the system is not going ahead. It was a system that has worked in Irish elections.

But it was opposed by opportunist opposition TDs, cranks and those who had some genuine concerns.

The Minister should have addressed and re-assured those with genuyne concerns and ignored opportunist opposition TDs and the cranks.

jd

Originally posted by Cork

The Minister should have addressed and re-assured those with genuyne concerns

How?

ecksor

Cork,

Indeed, he should have 're-assured' those with genuine concerns by showing that he had some inkling that he understood those concerns and was interested in making positive steps to resolve them. He never did. There are gaping problems with the system that he showed no intention of having fixed.

His statements on this issue are at best misinformed or at worst deliberately misleading. Your post is also one of the two, perhaps misinformed due to the misleading comments of the minister which you need to be more critical of?

If you claim that the system has worked in previous elections despite the lack of auditability that was clearly evident to anyone who cares to examine the details of the system and despite the report yesterday then you have to ask yourself why you should expect that such a statement should be taken at face value.

vorbis

since someone said the aussie system was open source i went looking for the source.
Here it is eVACS is the name of it. Minister Cullen can download it below.
http://www.elections.act.gov.au/evacs.tar.gz

secret_squirrel

Originally posted by Cork

But it was opposed by opportunist opposition TDs, cranks and those who had some genuine concerns.

Assuming this is not a troll.

So Cork you think it is oppurtunist for our elected representatives to attempt to preserve the democratic ideal by preventing a system that had numerous flaws being implemented?

You say the system has worked before???? With the lack of an audit trail, no published/audited code how do you know that? Can you PROVE it worked???? No? I didnt think so.
The potential for abuse of electronic voting demands
1. A machine that works and that can be proved that it works and minimises the risk of interference with a vote.
2. A minister/department that actually understands the Technology and importance of having a system that can be audited, and reviewed.

If we dont insist on these kind of measure we will be disenfranchised before we even realise it.....

Tuars

If I was Nora Owen I'd be asking some questions about her surprise seat loss at the last general election.

Cork

Originally posted by Tuars
If I was Nora Owen I'd be asking some questions about her surprise seat loss at the last general election.

Why? Eletronic voting worked.

In Ireland - we have no many doubting tomas's it is amazing.

An independent audit trail? When some opponants of this system use eletronics in their daily lives - Do they Ask for an independant audit trail?

How many of these people go into their banks and examine banking systems?

Sure, they are legitimate concerns that needed addressing but some concern that was was raised was by cranks.

Cranks that would put Victor Meldrew to shame.

qBot

Originally posted by vorbis
since someone said the aussie system was open source i went looking for the source.
Here it is eVACS is the name of it. Minister Cullen can download it below.
http://www.elections.act.gov.au/evacs.tar.gz

I'm not convinced open source is the way to go either. Sure you can argue that it will be less susceptible to bugs and more secure etc etc. But who's to say the government won't alter the code to give themselves more votes. If the system is open source, it is a lot easier to do. The bulk of the code is right in front of em, they only have to change a line or two. Saying that though, closed source isn't fully trust worthy either. Can u really trust the companies who write it.
I'm not a conspiracy theorist but could u imagine such a system in place in more unstable countries where governments would do anything to stay in power. You don't know who will be in power of this country in ten/twenty years down the road, we might fall victim to a corrupt dictatorship:D .If u can't find a system that works in every given situation then that system shouldn't be used at all. IMO, the problem lies with e-voting not with whether the source is open or closed.

vorbis

at some point qBot, you must trust something or someone to count the votes!
All the concerns you mention are in our existing paper based system so I fail to see the actual problems.

Tuars

Originally posted by Cork
Why? Eletronic voting worked.

How do you know? I read that there was a discrepancy of 1200 votes between the returning officers tally and the machines in Dublin North but we have no proof either way since there is no backup record.

An independent audit trail? When some opponants of this system use eletronics in their daily lives - Do they Ask for an independant audit trail?

Yes they do. The most obvious example is your bank statement issued on paper. There are other safegards too.

Sure, they are legitimate concerns that needed addressing but some concern that was was raised was by cranks.

So legitimate concerns should be ignored because they are raised by people that you label 'cranks'. If you want to win an argument you'll have to learn to debate the issue and not the messenger. Best of luck with that.

Tuars

Originally posted by qBot
I'm not convinced open source is the way to go either.

I think the major concern with the system would be bugs rather than manipulation. That would be my concern anyway. Making the code open source would go a long way to help find the bugs.

I agree it would do little to prevent fraud. After all who's to know if the the code running in the machine is the same as the code on paper. To prevent this we need the same safeguards, checks and balances, and independent oversight that we have with the present system.

qBot

Originally posted by vorbis
at some point qBot, you must trust something or someone to count the votes!
All the concerns you mention are in our existing paper based system so I fail to see the actual problems.

Well maybe, but the difference is that whatever malpractice is being carried out cannot be done on a grand scale without a record. With the existing systems you have a paper trail. With a computer based system, there is none. Even if u could print out the results cast through the computer system their is no way of telling whether they are legititmate votes and haven't been interfered with in any way.

Cork

Originally posted by qBot
Well maybe, but the difference is that whatever malpractice is being carried out cannot be done on a grand scale without a record.

What record exists for pay as you go type phones?

Manual bills are not sent out.

Most people accept their phone charges - never the less.

Audit Trails are only of use is certain circumstances.

If a voting system cannot be manipulated - an audit trail is a waste of money.

Memnoch

Originally posted by Cork
[BIf a voting system cannot be manipulated - an audit trail is a waste of money. [/B]

there is NO system that cannot be manipulated... the only way to insure that it hasn't been manipulated is to keep the possibility of checking to verify the results

Tuars

Originally posted by Cork
If a voting system cannot be manipulated - an audit trail is a waste of money.

I agree but the Independent Commission (or cranks according to you) found that the system could be manipulated. Also, experience with computers and technology in general would suggest that a paper trail would be advisable, at least starting out.

We should be aiming for a system that gives us the best advantages of electonic and paper voting. It is not an either/or situation. Our aim is to improve the electoral process and enhance democracy not to blindly follow the techno dream.

qBot

Originally posted by Cork
What record exists for pay as you go type phones?

Manual bills are not sent out.

Most people accept their phone charges - never the less.

Well i know what calls i've made and i will have a general idea of how long i was talking on those calls. So if my remaining credit is no where near what it should be, ill know about it. Plus o2 and meteor allow u to view any calls and text messages you've sent through their web sites. If I have a sneaking suspicion i've been overcharged i can check it out there. How can i check with an electronic voting system if it recorded my vote correctly.

Secondly, whether i get over/under charged for a call i make doesn't have much significance to my future or the countries future. Comparing billing systems with voting systems is not comparing like with like.

Audit Trails are only of use is certain circumstances.

If a voting system cannot be manipulated - an audit trail is a waste of money.

Problem is there is no software in the world that is bug free. So u can't state that a voting system cannot be manipulated. Software is by it's nature susceptible to bugs.

gandalf

Well don't you just love it when you go away on holiday, don't follow the news and get a geniune surprise when you read the paper after landing at Dublin Airport today.

I am actually surprised that the commission went against this, I was convienced that they were there to rubber stamp the decision to use electronic voting. The incompetience from the government has been staggering as has their arrogance. Cullen should resign over this and there should be other scalps as well. They have spent €58 million (according to the Irish Indo today) without checking it "does what it says on the tin".

Cork you are wearing your rose tinted glasses again (or whatever colour FF use) this whole process has been a farce from day one with professionals who know computer systems raising fears that the system was not given the type of testing that something as important as our right to vote should have.

One thing I am looking forward to now is having all these FF and PD canvassers coming around looking for my vote in the upcoming elections I am going to enjoy making their lives a misery.

Gandalf.

gandalf

Hmmm Bertie must have pissed off "Sir" Tony recently.

What the Government ministers said

ADVERTISEMENT



"The system has undergone extensive independent testing."

Martin Cullen on February 25.

"The system has been independently verified and will be the most accurate, and therefore the most democratic, system we have ever had."

Charlie McCreevy in the Dail, February 17.

"The system has been independently verified as safe and reliable."

Mr McCreevy again on February 17.

"This system is secure, reliable, and can be trusted by the Irish people."

Charlie McCreevy.

"The manner in which we transfer surpluses to subsequent counts is not correct and does not give a true reflection of the vote, but the computer will do that."

Mr McCreevy, speaking about manual counting of votes on February 17.

http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=9&si=1173969&issue_id=10812 Registration needed

As I said previously Cullen should go and by the looks of those comments McGreedy should go as well because he lied.

Gandalf.

Victor

Eh, they are still advertising it on radio - "safe, secure and accurate".

Originally posted by Cork
It is a pity that the system is not going ahead. It was a system that has worked in Irish elections.

Didn't the Commission find an error in the count software?

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Cork

Cork you are wearing your rose tinted glasses again (or whatever colour FF use) this whole process has been a farce from day one with professionals who know computer systems raising fears that the system was not given the type of testing that something as important as our right to vote should have.

Did not all political partys not support the system before the last election? Leaving U turns aside - electronic voting is on the way.

The government set up the commission and the commission sided on the side of caution.

I see no problem with that.

Hand Counting really is on the way out. John Dennehy and Mildred Fox awaiting days for a result is crazy.

The glitches with eletronic voting will be ironed out. I personally would have prefered to see its introduction.

Manually seperating the votes of 3 ballots? There really has to be a better way.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

gandalf

Cork you really do amaze me sometimes. The government lied saying that the system was secure and tested when it obviously wasn't and they have wasted money (yet again!). I think even you would agree that if someone lied they should resign from their position. I mean if I made a mess of this size where I work then I would quite rightly expect my contract to be terminated.

As for e-voting of course it will come in but with a transparent process in place with some sort of audit system to allow for system glitches not the "wink and nod" approach that this government have been using along with their "we know best" attitude without proof.

So Cork you would like to see the introduction of the current flawed system, well its nice to see you value our right to vote so highly. I'm sure those that died in 1916 would be proud of people like you who take the right to an independent accurate vote so lightly. By the way just in case you don't realise I was being sarcastic.

Gandalf.

dahamsta

Originally posted by gandalf
So Cork you would like to see the introduction of the current flawed system

Of course he would. The best way to get a corrupt party into power is to use corruption.

Ye're worse to encourage him...

adam

Agent Smith

i'm looking forward wo putting my x on the ballot in june,....

electronice voting doesnt give you the same feeling, if you knows what i mean?

Cork

Originally posted by dahamsta
Of course he would. The best way to get a corrupt party into power is to use corruption.

What evidence is there do you have to support such a conspiracy?

Does corruption not effect some political partys?

The commission went on the side of caution.

The Government accepted its findings.

The system may be very well be in place for the Presidental election.

Victor

http://home.eircom.net/content/unison/national/3118418?view=Eircomnet

Last night an overwhelming 68 per cent of respondents to a Sunday Independent phone poll declared that Environment Minister Martin Cullen should resign over the e-voting debacle

Cork

A phone poll is not really of a representation. The sample is not fairly drawn.

Why should Mr. Cullan resign?

The commission went on the side of caution.

The Government accepted its findings.

So, Mr. Cullan should resign?

The system could very well be OK for the Presidental election.

Victor

Originally posted by Cork
A phone poll is not really of a representation. The sample is not fairly drawn.

Are you slandering the paper and their pollsters? How do you know it wasn't fairly drawn?

Originally posted by Cork
Why should Mr. Cullan resign?

Slander. Lies. Being computer illitierate. Waste of public money. Conflict of interest. Lack of management. Lack of thoroughness. Eh, would that all add up to incompetence?

Originally posted by Cork
The system could very well be OK for the Presidental election.

Is that the proposed system with the error in it or some further "new" system?

Originally posted by Cork
Manually seperating the votes of 3 ballots?

Don't you mean 4 ballots? Wahooo! I was able to manage the separation of differently coloured pieces of paper certainly by age 4, probably even before that.

gandalf

Originally posted by Cork
Why should Mr. Cullan resign?

"The system has undergone extensive independent testing." -Martin Cullen on February 25.

He lied Cork thats why he should go. Obviously you or this government have no understanding of responsibility and accountability.

Gandalf.

Cork

Originally posted by gandalf
He lied Cork thats why he should go. Obviously you or this government have no understanding of responsibility and accountability.

Gandalf.

But it was the government who established the commission.

The government have taken the findings into account by not proceeding with eletronic voting on this ocasion.

We will get the opposition preaching and trying to make political capital - but the commission simply had not enough time to evaluate the system.

"Waste of public money"? The system could yet get the green light before the presidental election. Eletronic voting is the way to go.

With time - Public concerns will be addressed.

secret_squirrel

Tell me cork why did you bother to quote Gandalf and then fail to address his main point that Cullen Lied?

Yes public concerns should be adressed but the government you're so blindly supporting wanted to foist a flawed system on to voters - as system that was easy to corrupt.

Setting up a commision doesnt earn them any brownie points - they let things go far to later before doing so. It obviously didnt need much in the way of expertise to tell them how flawed the system was and yet they tried to force it through before backing down at the last minute.

And yes Im sure Electronic voting is part of the future, but not the system Cullen and his fools picked out. They should be fired for incompetance if nothing else.

Yes public concerns will be addressed - but not if the people you're so happy to defend get their way.

And it would be nice to see some reasoned arguement..not just reiterating you're earlier cranks comment in different ways....

Victor

Originally posted by Cork
"Waste of public money"? The system could yet get the green light before the presidental election. Eletronic voting is the way to go.

But the extra machines are being bought at a multiple of the contracts price and seeing as them whill depreciate between when they were bought and when the will be used, yes that is a waste of money.

I wonder if the fact that they were not adequately tested is a breach of contract (the contract specified independent testing).

Originally posted by Cork
Did not all political partys not support the system before the last election? Leaving U turns aside - electronic voting is on the way.

Were those parties not entitle to expect competency from the department's "experts"?

I also also refer you to John Bruton's letter to Bertie. http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?postid=1412947#post1412947

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?postid=1412427#post1412427

gandalf

Cork are you missing the plot totally here. No matter what the commission reported the Government in the form of Cullen and McCreedy said the system as it stood was ready to be rolled out and was fully tested. From the commissions report these statements were totally untrue and unfounded. The Government lied.

They have wasted money on a system that is flawed. They have wasted money with a company that will not share their source code and are obviously incapable of doing the job that they were contracted to do (of course this depends on the Governments original contract/tender for the job). Electronic voting will come in but how can we be sure this discredited system will be the one thats brought in when it does come around. Whatever way you look at it money has been wasted here.

Public concerns are why did the government lie to them and say the system was fully tested when that obviously wasn't the case.

Gandalf.

Cork

Originally posted by secret_squirrel


And yes Im sure Electronic voting is part of the future, but not the system Cullen and his fools picked out. They should be fired for incompetance if nothing else.

There is no evidence that the purposed system will not be implemented. The commission had not enough time to determine this or the contrary.

But the extra machines are being bought at a multiple of the contracts price and seeing as them whill depreciate between when they were bought and when the will be used, yes that is a waste of money.

But the system may very well be in place for the presidental election.

Whatever way you look at it money has been wasted here.

But - this system still could very well be in place before the presidental election. Money that was used for both training and PR could yet be considered not a waste of money.

Public concerns are why did the government lie to them and say the system was fully tested when that obviously wasn't the case.

The system was tested. The commission had not enough time to reach conclusions.

They have wasted money on a system that is flawed.

Commission did not reach that conclusion.

But Gandalf - public concerns should have been addressed earlier and the Commission set up earlier. I still have confidence is the system & I believe that it will be ready for the Presidental election.

But I agree it all needed to be handled much better.

sceptre

Originally posted by Cork
Commission did not reach that conclusion.

Actually yes it did. The Commission said that the current system couldn't guarantee secrecy OR accuracy. In other words, the current system can't guarantee that the votes are counted correctly AND the current system can't guarantee that your voting preference isn't on the desk of the local TD when you go in to complain about planning corruption.

Plus the government lied. And the adverts saying that the system is foolproof were still on the radio this evening. I'm practising by turning a light switch on and off but it may be a while before my practice becomes worth anything.

Villain

Cork, the Government LIED, its being said to you on a number of occasions already, but for some reason you haven't responded to it.

If it wasn't for the opposition and campaign groups the commission would probably never have been set-up. FF think they can do whatever they like and that the citizens of Ireland will sit back and say OK, I'm just glad the commission at least saw some sense.

star gazer

originally posted by Cork[/i}
public concerns should have been addressed earlier and the Commission set up earlier. I still have confidence is the system & I believe that it will be ready for the Presidental election.

And this has to be the responsibility of the Minister and his cabinet colleagues. They were given a lot of concerns before Christmas and yet decided that because it was not a big news story that they could press ahead with it. Only when extreme pressure came on in the Dáil did the government move to appoint the commission with narrow terms of reference. Clearly they messed up and the system wasn't tested as it should have been, Who will take responsibility for that???

this system still could very well be in place before the presidental election. Money that was used for both training and PR could yet be considered not a waste of money.

So now the government can gamble fifty million on a system that could be used and we should just accept that?

bonkey

Originally posted by many, many people
The Government lied

People keep saying this. Especially about Minister Cullen.

Its possible that he didn't lie - that he is just spectacularly inept and incompetent and didn't realise that what he was saying was not true.

Of course, that would also be a reason to get rid of him, IMHO.

Originally (not that its original) posted by Cork
The system was tested.

Yes, but you dropped out the word fully though. Look back at the comment you were responding to? Here it is again, and I'll highlight the important word you seem to have missed...just so it doesn't happen again :


The system was not fully tested. It was partially tested. It was not sufficiently tested. There is a rather significant difference, although it appears that you - like Mr. Cullen - are either incapable of or unwilling to admit that.

I still have confidence is the system

Good for you.

What I can't understand is that you defend the government because it set up this comission knowing it (the government) needed an expert opinion.

The comission provided this, and you attempt to defend the government's actions because it is following the findings.

At the same time, you attempt to defend Mr. Cullen by saying that you believe the expert findings and recommendations are wrong.

Tell me Cork...are you a qualified expert on IT and IT security? If not, how can you defend the non-expert government for seeking and following the experts' advice, whilst still trying to argue that the experts' advice is wrong in your opinion.

You're arguing, therefore, that the governemnt is wise in knowing what it doesn't know, honest in turning to experts, and shows integrity by accepting the same findings that you say we shouldn't accept!!!!!

With time - Public concerns will be addressed.

Yes indeed. Hopefully they will be. The point is that the system should go into place after valid concerns have been addressed, not before.

The system could very well be OK for the Presidental election.

Me guessing the final numbers could also be OK for teh Presidential election. It could produce the correct answer.

We can even have the same amount of surity in the figures I produce, because like e-voting, my system can't be verified against how people actually voted.

Will you back my guesstimate as an acceptably good system for the election, Cork?

I'll even be able to provide you with some limited information beforehand - which may or may not be accurate itself - on the approximate process that I will use.

And hey - an independant comission will recommend that you not use my system either....so it will be just like the real thing.

Go on. Back "Bonkey's Voting E-Guesstimator 2003". You know its the right solution.

jc

Typedef

Personally as a voter and a professional programmer, I can never have confidence in a closed source system, which has no paper trail.

I'm shocked the Minister hasn't done the decent thing and resign, rather then further discredit the government.

It's bad enough the government lied and said the system was secure and voter verifable, and it's bad enough that the government completely ignored advice from a lexicon of knowledgeable IT professionals and cherry picked, the 'experts' it would listen to, but, for this man to continue in office and attempt yet again to shoe horn this bogus, non-voter verifable system is a complete farce.

As a programmer and a voter, I will never trust a system who's source code "I" as a voter can't verify, that goes completely against my ability to verify every step of the voting process and no, the notion of simply 'trusting' the vendor is inadequate in a modern democracy.

In fact it would be a reterograde step from the Joe Soap verifable paper based system we have today.

The Clown Man

Originally posted by irish1
Cork, the Government LIED, its being said to you on a number of occasions already, but for some reason you haven't responded to it.

If it wasn't for the opposition and campaign groups the commission would probably never have been set-up. FF think they can do whatever they like and that the citizens of Ireland will sit back and say OK, I'm just glad the commission at least saw some sense.

Folks.

The commission did not find that the system did not work. For all they knew it could be absolutely flawless. They recommended that it not be used because basically, they didn't know. There were small code changes in the last few months that would have been seen as totally insignificant to anyone who could read and understand the code. They were mainly procedural changes and changes to the userablility of the program. Never once did the commission suggest that the system was incapable of doing it's job; they simply said that in the time they were given to test this system, they could not provide a satisfactory conclusion. And the default result had to be a "No" - how can they say yes until they are 100% sure; it's thier asses on the line if they did.

From the very start the government was told that this worked. I am fairly sure that not one of them could perform a system test themselves, but they made the mistake of relying on the words of basically everyone that had every been in contact with and using the system in the last 10 years.

Now, €40m later we are going to go back to the old system of recounts, unsurity and inaccuracy. The ballot box system has far more flaws than the electronic system. What the hell difference does a paper trail make if you can't even track it properly? Imagine we were only adopting the ballot box system now. Would you honestly think we would accept a system that works as it does? If a commission were given 1 week to test the ballot box system they would come back the same night wetting their pants laughing.

A far superior system has been sacraficed for the initially flawed one because of exactly what Cork has been talking about. Moaners. Sure there are genuine doubters with good reason because there are good reasons to doubt but the VAST majority are people with a gripe because their daddies voted FG or Labour or whatever and who don't really care what they are arguing about as long as it's the total opposite of what the others are saying. Viva la politics.

Don't forget to keep an eye on the big picture. Do the genuine code doubters understand how the ballot box system works? Have you ever analysed it? Give that a go and see what you come up with.

Do the political moaners realise what a democratically sound system they have passed up? Do they really even care?

The big picture i see is:

We were less than one month away from using this new improved system which we were all (by the way) ready to accept and now we are going back to the system which uses wax and stamp as the official safegard against any illegal interference. Congratulations opposition. Way to go.

Villain

Originally posted by The Clown Man
The big picture i see is:

We were less than one month away from using this new improved system which we were all (by the way) ready to accept and now we are going back to the system which uses wax and stamp as the official safegard against any illegal interference. Congratulations opposition. Way to go.

So you'd rather go with a closed source system, that has not been tested enough to show it's not open to error or interference over the system that elected the current government, the system that has been used and accpeted for decades???

That doesn't make much sense to me.

The Clown Man

Oh, it has been tested alright and has been used for one decade. Just not by us. The Belgians, Germans and Dutch for example, who have used it nationally but not for the same purposes have tried and tested it and found it sound.

The fact that no Irish person has tested it and found it to be flawless does not mean it has not been tested. It is true that it has never been used for national elections and there needs to be testing done by ourselves to ensure it works, it is just that thanks to the amount of mainly unfounded pressure, the default answer was always going to be a "no" from the commission. And they were never going to be in a position to say yes, regardless of what system they were testing.

Villain

Originally posted by The Clown Man
Oh, it has been tested alright and has been used for one decade. Just not by us. The Belgians, Germans and Dutch for example, who have used it nationally but not for the same purposes have tried and tested it and found it sound.

The fact that no Irish person has tested it and found it to be flawless does not mean it has not been tested. It is true that it has never been used for national elections and there needs to be testing done by ourselves to ensure it works, it is just that thanks to the amount of mainly unfounded pressure, the default answer was always going to be a "no" from the commission. And they were never going to be in a position to say yes, regardless of what system they were testing.

This system??, you mean the exact same software and exact same machines that we were going to use here have been used in Belgium German and Holland for a decade, really??? I wasn't aware of that.