Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

E Voting Machines Query

2»

Comments

  • #32
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,644 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    View wrote: »
    There was no requirement on the computerised system to replicate the paper-based system in all its glories and failings.

    If you conduct an election with the faulty system, and I go to the polls and cannot cast a spoiled vote, I have a case that my constitutional right to cast a vote in secret has been violated.

    My only options are to not vote (not a secret) or vote for one of the listed candidates (not my intention).

    It's faulty and unconstitutional.


  • #33
    gizmo555
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,878 ✭✭✭gizmo555


    View wrote: »
    There is no constitutional right, as the Irish Computer Society seems to think, to abstain when in the voting booth.

    Whether the ICS is correct or not, it is clear that your assertion that 'no one ever held it [the ability to abstain in secret] up to be a "feature" ' is plain wrong. Other submissions made substantially the same point as the ICS too.


  • #34
    View
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,872 ✭✭✭View


    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    If you conduct an election with the faulty system,

    Again the system was not faulty unless it failed to conform to the requirement specified by the Oireachtas or Minister.

    You don't get to trump a decision of the Oireachtas just because they make one you don't agree with.
    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    and I go to the polls and cannot cast a spoiled vote, I have a case that my constitutional right to cast a vote in secret has been violated.

    Having a case and having a winnable case are two different things.
    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    My only options are to not vote (not a secret) or vote for one of the listed candidates (not my intention).

    Neither of these options infringe your constitutional right to vote in secret. If you choose not to exercise that right, for whatever reason, that's your choice (and, no, we are not required to keep that a secret).
    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    It's faulty and unconstitutional.

    Point out where the Supreme Court ruled either the system was faulty or unconstitutional, or, indeed, that you have a right to "spoil" your ballot.

    As of now, the reality is, the "petty details" of the voting system are left to the Oireachtas within "broad" constitutional parameters.


  • #35
    View
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,872 ✭✭✭View


    gizmo555 wrote: »
    Whether the ICS is correct or not, it is clear that your assertion that 'no one ever held it [the ability to abstain in secret] up to be a "feature" ' is plain wrong. Other submissions made substantially the same point as the ICS too.

    A "feature" is usually regarded as being a benefit to a system - a desirable quality which makes it easier to achieve its purpose.

    Thus, a feature, might help reduce the number of errors in a system (by preventing them from occuring). Something that enables them to occur when they could easily be prevented is not.

    And, sorry, but the issue of whether you have a legal right to spoil your vote deliberately is pretty fundamental to deciding which side of this argument is correct.

    If the Supreme Court rules tomorrow you have a right to deliberately spoil your vote in the polling booth then you are absolutely correct in your assertions. If they don't make such a ruling, then it is (and was) left up to the Oireachtas to implement the voting system as they saw fit.


  • #36
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,644 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    View wrote: »
    Again the system was not faulty unless it failed to conform to the requirement specified by the Oireachtas or Minister.

    Way back when in the thread, you wrote:
    View wrote: »
    No although subsequently the government had made a commitment to spend a sizeable chunk of tax-payers monies for an "upgrade" to allow this.

    so clearly the politicians agreed, once the fault was pointed out, that is was a fault.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    View
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,872 ✭✭✭View


    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    Way back when in the thread, you wrote:



    so clearly the politicians agreed, once the fault was pointed out, that is was a fault.

    They agreed they would change the specification for the voting system to accommodate such behaviour. That isn't the same thing as agreeing it was a "fault". Merely, I suspect, a desire for some peace and quiet.

    To the best of my knowledge they never actually did change the law to give effect to that agreement. It was long-fingered at the time. I would suspect such a change would have been open to constitutional challenge as you no longer are operating "pure" PR-STV if you make such a change.

    And whether the government SHOULD have agrees to implement that change is a different question.

    After all, under the current paper ballot system, if I am truly determined to "make a point", I can eat my paper ballot if I so choose. I don't think my "right" to eat my ballot is one that should be regarded as critical to the design of a computerised voting system though! And, certainly not one the law should take into account much less enshrine.


  • #38
    gizmo555
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,878 ✭✭✭gizmo555


    View wrote: »
    After all, under the current paper ballot system, if I am truly determined to "make a point", I can eat my paper ballot if I so choose.

    Wrong again - you're not allowed take the ballot paper from the polling station :D


  • #39
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,644 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    View wrote: »
    They agreed they would change the specification for the voting system to accommodate such behaviour.

    Exactly, which they would not have done if you were correct and spoiled votes are just a flaw in the existing system.

    And they are, as you have pointed out, the people with the authority to make that call, unless the Supreme Court rules otherwise.


Advertisement