Why do Irish elections always take AGES to count?

It always get me why elections in Ireland take such a long time to count. Here in the UK on election night for the Westminster elections, some constituencies declare their vote within a few hours. I know they are first past the post in fairness.
But in Ireland it seems like it takes all day to even get the to the first count,

Even for the local elections today some local areas have not even declared their first count with only 10,000 or so votes to count.

What are they doing?

goat2

i think it make for a better day for all, it is great to hear who is in and out and then waiting for transfers, i see nothing wrong with it, it is part of our way,
does it matter whether we are faster or slower than Westminster, i have been all day listning to local radio and watching some going up and down and it is not always the person with the most first preferences that get the most second and third preferences,

Godge

We could have the results much quicker if we had electronic voting machines - but we were too backward to accept these.

ArmaniJeanss

Deleted User wrote: »

It always get me why elections in Ireland take such a long time to count. Here in the UK on election night for the Westminster elections, some constituencies declare their vote within a few hours. I know they are first past the post in fairness.
But in Ireland it seems like it takes all day to even get the to the first count,

Even for the local elections today some local areas have not even declared their first count with only 10,000 or so votes to count.

What are they doing?

There might be 3 or 4 different counts going on in the same place and they'll finish one before starting the next, hence it seems like a huge delay til you get the first count for some wards.

Westminter elections are ridiculously easy to count anyway, 80% of seats you can fly through the vote because Tory candidate or Labour candidate is going to win by 12,000+ anyway. Being inaccurate in the count by a few dozen doesn't matter.
Whereas in Ireland you need to get the vote bang on from the start because that chap who polls in 7th place with 1900 votes may end up being the kingmaker for the last seat, so his initial total needs to be completely accurate.

goat2

Godge wrote: »

We could have the results much quicker if we had electronic voting machines - but we were too backward to accept these.

remember what we paid for the storage of those things, how wasteful, where did they take them,

Busted Flat.

Everything is slower in this country, state employees have to show how hard they work, in order to justify their largess and pensions. Every TD starts of in reply to a question, "our staff are doing Trojan work and are extremely busy".

Knob Longman

The oneness is on slowness

Mr. G

Busted Flat. wrote: »

Everything is slower in this country, state employees have to show how hard they work, in order to justify their largess and pensions. Every TD starts of in reply to a question, "our staff are doing Trojan work and are extremely busy".

No, the reason it's slower is because we have a different vote counting system. You're not comparing like with like here.

The UK have first past the post, we have proportional representation.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/government_in_ireland/elections_and_referenda/voting/proportional_representation.html

Conmaicne Mara

Godge wrote: »

We could have the results much quicker if we had electronic voting machines - but we were too backward to accept these.

The couple of days every half decade we get to see politicians writhe in pain and you want to take it away from us :mad:

Leave them suffer

Doom

Teachers be on overtime. ..

oscarBravo

Godge wrote: »

We could have the results much quicker if we had electronic voting machines...

Yes. The results may or may not have been an accurate reflection of the votes cast, but at least they'd be instant.

Busted Flat.

Mr. G wrote: »

No, the reason it's slower is because we have a different vote counting system. You're not comparing like with like here.

The UK have first past the post, we have proportional representation.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/government_in_ireland/elections_and_referenda/voting/proportional_representation.html

I am aware of that, my comment was in relation to everything being to slow in this statlet. The carry on today with count centers and chairs being put in place at 11 oc was a bit rich, when they were supposed to start at 9 oc.

comongethappy

The folks in Wicklow count centre genuinely like to be last to declare.
Its really their thing.

If Donetsk counted 1.5 million "votes" in an hour, why can't we?

Frank Lee Midere

Godge wrote: »

We could have the results much quicker if we had electronic voting machines - but we were too backward to accept these.

Only idiots think that's an option.

comongethappy

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

Only idiots think that's an option.

Lots of other countries use them.

Don't blame the tech.
Blame paddy's ham fisted implementation.

Frank Lee Midere

Busted Flat. wrote: »

I am aware of that, my comment was in relation to everything being to slow in this statlet. The carry on today with count centers and chairs being put in place at 11 oc was a bit rich, when they were supposed to start at 9 oc.

Cool story bro. But the reason is the Single Transferable Vote. If there are ten counts they can take up to ten times longer than one count.


And what's the rush?

oscarBravo

comongethappy wrote: »

Lots of other countries use them.

Don't blame the tech.
Blame paddy's ham fisted implementation.

It's an essentially intractable problem. The fact that other countries use them doesn't make them secure or trustworthy; it just means that other countries have decided that the convenience outweighs the risks - not a tradeoff I'd agree with.

Guys, my original issue with the time taken was not in relation to the voting system. I am well aware of PR vs first past the post and the need for more counts etc.
My issue was with the time taken to get a first count result! And also why do they bother with tallies?

Busted Flat.

comongethappy wrote: »

Lots of other countries use them.

Don't blame the tech.
Blame paddy's ham fisted implementation.

Compare the choice of the Saorview box to the evoting machines, similar to their purchase by the state, both useless. I paid €120 for mine, yet I bought a dish and a sat free box for €50 that comes on instantly while I have to wait for the junk Saorview box that was insisted by the state for several minutes to come on. It was incompetence that fooked up the evoting machine, because everyone connected with it had to get a back!!!!!. That how it works.

Busted Flat.

Busted Flat. wrote: »

Compare the choice of the Saorview box to the evoting machines, similar to their purchase by the state, both useless. I paid €120 for mine, yet I bought a dish and a sat free box for €50 that comes on instantly while I have to wait for the junk Saorview box that was insisted by the state for several minutes to come on. It was incompetence that fooked up the evoting machine, because everyone connected with it had to get a back!!!!!. That how it works.

How long did it take for the first count to come out.

comongethappy

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Guys, my original issue with the time taken was not in relation to the voting system. I am well aware of PR vs first past the post and the need for more counts etc.
My issue was with the time taken to get a first count result! And also why do they bother with tallies?

Tbh I doubt any of us know why it takes so long.

It could be just down to the fact, the people working on counts want it to take forever.

Easy money & all that.

NufcNavan

I thought it was strange when I was told to put my local and european election sheets in the same box.

Then I figured that in contrast of a common sense approach where there are separate boxes for each, it gives the aul' bags and jobsworths a chance to do something for the day by splitting the papers at the expense of saving hours of time.

Godge

oscarBravo wrote: »

Yes. The results may or may not have been an accurate reflection of the votes cast, but at least they'd be instant.

conspiracy theory forum over there ....

Amirani

Godge wrote: »

conspiracy theory forum over there ....

It's a conspiracy to suggest that certain people would like to rig an election if it was made very easy to do so?

Phoebas

Diego Simeone wrote: »

It's a conspiracy to suggest that certain people would like to rig an election if it was made very easy to do so?

It'd be pretty easy to rig an election under the current system. The electronic system we had had some flaws, but it wouldn't be impossible to come up with an electronic system that was at least as secure are the current manual system.
The problem is one of trust - but trust and security aren't always the same thing.

Godge

Diego Simeone wrote: »

It's a conspiracy to suggest that certain people would like to rig an election if it was made very easy to do so?

It wasn't possible to rig the election with the voting machines, that was just the usual Anti-everything campaigners.

feargale

comongethappy wrote: »

Tbh I doubt any of us know why it takes so long.
It could be just down to the fact, the people working on counts want it to take forever.
Easy money & all that.

That's an unfair slur on ordinary citizens who take on this job and go non-stop hammer and thongs.
As pointed out, we employ proportional representation, unlike the UK, which alone in Europe uses first past to post to ensure that non-establishment parties are undemocratically frozen out. What's your hurry to get the results? The object of the exercise is to ascertain and implement the will of the people, not to provide television entertainment for couch potatoes.
You mentioned Donetsk which you say counted 1.5 million votes in an hour. Why don't you cite Azerbaijan which, with unprecedented efficiency, had the result of last year's presidential election three days before voting day?

oscarBravo

Godge wrote: »

conspiracy theory forum over there ....

When you've looked into the theory and practice of electronic voting as deeply as I have, come back to me.

Phoebas wrote: »

It'd be pretty easy to rig an election under the current system.

Not really.

The electronic system we had had some flaws, but it wouldn't be impossible to come up with an electronic system that was at least as secure are the current manual system.

It really would.

The problem is one of trust - but trust and security aren't always the same thing.

The problem is one of transparency. How do you know the machine recorded your vote?

Godge wrote: »

It wasn't possible to rig the election with the voting machines...

How do you know?

Godge

oscarBravo wrote: »

When you've looked into the theory and practice of electronic voting as deeply as I have, come back to me.


How do you know?

Because I looked into it at the time.

FrStone

Godge wrote: »

Because I looked into it at the time.

And were all the bits still there?

FrStone

oscarBravo wrote: »

It's an essentially intractable problem. The fact that other countries use them doesn't make them secure or trustworthy; it just means that other countries have decided that the convenience outweighs the risks - not a tradeoff I'd agree with.

People like transparency, which doesn't exist with e-voting.

FrStone

NufcNavan wrote: »

I thought it was strange when I was told to put my local and european election sheets in the same box.

Then I figured that in contrast of a common sense approach where there are separate boxes for each, it gives the aul' bags and jobsworths a chance to do something for the day by splitting the papers at the expense of saving hours of time.

To be honest, as someone working in a polling station we thought it was a bit odd too. Sure the box was quite full by the end of the day anyway. However, the state would have to buy a massive amount of new ballot boxes if we were to do it this way.

The main barrier to it is the electorate. Generally they are old and batty. Getting them to separate their votes would be very difficult. I spent all day yesterday telling people to put their vote back into the box in front of me, and they would wander around and put it in the wrong ballot box...

Frank Lee Midere

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Guys, my original issue with the time taken was not in relation to the voting system. I am well aware of PR vs first past the post and the need for more counts etc.
My issue was with the time taken to get a first count result! And also why do they bother with tallies?

Tallies are just people watching. Again more transparent than otherwise. And once again - why the rush?

Frank Lee Midere

oscarBravo wrote: »

When you've looked into the theory and practice of electronic voting as deeply as I have, come back to me.

Not really. It really would. The problem is one of transparency. How do you know the machine recorded your vote?

How do you know?

Exactly. Nobody can guarantee that votes are recorded, stored or counted properly in an electronic machine.

Phoebas

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

Exactly. Nobody can guarantee that votes are recorded, stored or counted properly in an electronic machine.

The current system is also full of flaws that could easily be exploited.
All I needed yesterday was a voting card (which they tore up in front of me, so it isn't retained), so I could easily have voted with other people's cards. And the register seems to be maintained very loosely - you hear all kinds of stories of people being registered in more than one electoral area and polling cards being issued for dead people, emigrants, etc.

In the polling stations all you would need is a little bit of collusion going on to get extra votes cast for people who didn't turn up.
A small effort could make all the difference in a tight election.

When people evaluate the electronic alternatives they tend to hold it to a much higher standard than what we currently have.

swampgas

I'll repeat a post I made back in 2011.

The more anyone knows about computers, the less they like electronic voting.

The great thing about the current system is that it is open and transparent, you can actually see the counting take place. I'd prefer that over electronic voting any day. As an engineer familiar with security, electronics, computers, embedded systems, software and social engineering, I can think of quite a few ways to steal an election using electronic voting machines.

There are many things computers are great for, reliable anonymous voting isn't one of them.

Anyway, why take my word for it - check out what world-recognised expert on security, Bruce Schneier, has to say: http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2004/11/the_problem_wit.html

Cookie_Monster

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

And once again - why the rush?

Why not? It's information that should be available as soon as possible, frankly I think it's embarrassing that it takes so long.

Nobody can guarantee that votes are recorded, stored or counted properly in an electronic machine.

can't guarantee that now either

Carbon125

Non-verifiable e-voting without a paper trail? Therefore, no ability to recount? Ooooh yes - every government's wet dream!

swampgas

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Why not? It's information that should be available as soon as possible, frankly I think it's embarrassing that it takes so long.

I disagree. The time taken has absolutely no impact on the way the country is run, so why not take our time and do it right?

can't guarantee that now either

Anyone with a pair of eyes can observe the voting process and verify it. Would you prefer to trust the CEO of VotingMachinesInc.com that his machines work perfectly well, even though he might have a massive vested interest in a particular outcome?

imme

Deleted User wrote: »

It always get me why elections in Ireland take such a long time to count. Here in the UK on election night for the Westminster elections, some constituencies declare their vote within a few hours. I know they are first past the post in fairness.
But in Ireland it seems like it takes all day to even get the to the first count,

Even for the local elections today some local areas have not even declared their first count with only 10,000 or so votes to count.

What are they doing?

see you do know the answer.

imme

Phoebas wrote: »

The current system is also full of flaws that could easily be exploited.
All I needed yesterday was a voting card (which they tore up in front of me, so it isn't retained), so I could easily have voted with other people's cards. And the register seems to be maintained very loosely - you hear all kinds of stories of people being registered in more than one electoral area and polling cards being issued for dead people, emigrants, etc.

In the polling stations all you would need is a little bit of collusion going on to get extra votes cast for people who didn't turn up.
A small effort could make all the difference in a tight election.

When people evaluate the electronic alternatives they tend to hold it to a much higher standard than what we currently have.

Emigrants as you term them are allowed to vote in elections.
Which election depends on their birth country.

Red Nissan

Godge wrote: »

We could have the results much quicker if we had electronic voting machines - but we were too backward to accept these.

I resent that remark.

But my memory fails me, did we publicly vote to against them?

Red Nissan

Generally speaking, politicians and interested parties like the process, I tend to prefer to hear the results, because they may effect me immediately in carbon tax or fart tax and so forth.

And then we can have the last seat being won by three votes, and the loser demanding a recount and actually winning by fifteen votes and the loser now demanding a re-recount and winning again by six votes and the loser now demanding a re-re-recount ..................................................................

Phoebas

imme wrote: »

Emigrants as you term them are allowed to vote in elections.
Which election depends on their birth country.

I mean Irish citizens who have emigrated abroad.

Godge

swampgas wrote: »

Anyone with a pair of eyes can observe the voting process and verify it. Would you prefer to trust the CEO of VotingMachinesInc.com that his machines work perfectly well, even though he might have a massive vested interest in a particular outcome?

At the moment we depend on 30-40 county council officials who act as returning officers to decide whether or not votes are spoiled or not, does anyone ever take them to account? An overly fussy or overly lax returning officer could have a big influence on an election.

LuckyLloyd

Our system is transparent and accurate.

The length of time it takes is good for driving interest in the democratic process too as it creates drama and keeps the story in the headlines for a drawn out period.

No change needed.

Frank Lee Midere

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Why not? It's information that should be available as soon as possible, frankly I think it's embarrassing that it takes so long.

Were I American I would find the fact that their automatic systems are flawed (hanging chads anyone?) and the elections and exit polls count so fast it's often pointless voting late in California yet the president isn't sworn in for months.

There is no rush. In general a few days over a weekend is not going to hamper government which wouldn't be meeting that time anyway.

swampgas

Godge wrote: »

At the moment we depend on 30-40 county council officials who act as returning officers to decide whether or not votes are spoiled or not, does anyone ever take them to account? An overly fussy or overly lax returning officer could have a big influence on an election.

Just one person who has access to the voting software can influence the election in a far greater way, and cover their tracks completely.

oscarBravo

Godge wrote: »

Because I looked into it at the time.

Then, with respect, I don't think you looked hard enough.

I have a folder in my inbox where I've archived all the discussions on electronic voting I've been involved in over the years. There are more than six thousand messages in there, spanning a full decade.

It's essentially impossible to create an electronic voting system that matches the levels of security and transparency our current system offers, such as they are. If you want to claim that we could introduce electronic voting that doesn't require any such compromises, the onus is on you to describe such a system.

When I cast a paper ballot, I know as I leave the polling station that my vote is stored, unaltered, in the ballot box. With electronic voting, I have no such assurance; I'm required to blindly trust a computer.

I've been working professionally with computer hardware and software since 1987. Blindly trust a computer? No thanks.

Phoebas wrote: »

The current system is also full of flaws that could easily be exploited.
All I needed yesterday was a voting card (which they tore up in front of me, so it isn't retained), so I could easily have voted with other people's cards. And the register seems to be maintained very loosely - you hear all kinds of stories of people being registered in more than one electoral area and polling cards being issued for dead people, emigrants, etc.

All of which could be fixed without electronic voting, and none of which would be impossible with electronic voting.

In the polling stations all you would need is a little bit of collusion going on to get extra votes cast for people who didn't turn up.
A small effort could make all the difference in a tight election.

Equally possible with electronic voting.

When people evaluate the electronic alternatives they tend to hold it to a much higher standard than what we currently have.

Actually, I just want it to achieve the same standards as what we currently have.

Godge wrote: »

At the moment we depend on 30-40 county council officials who act as returning officers to decide whether or not votes are spoiled or not, does anyone ever take them to account? An overly fussy or overly lax returning officer could have a big influence on an election.

I'd be pretty confident that if a candidate thought a biased returning officer had cost them a seat, we'd have heard about it.

efb

Politico nerds love it

seamus

All voting systems are inherently gameable, there's no perfect system. The difference between manual counts and e-voting is simplicity. With manual counting, everyone there knows how it works, what's going on and how to spot messing in the system. From the people counting, to the returning officers, they know how the system works inside-out and what fraud looks like. To rig a manual vote you need to bribe and threaten a lot of people and even then you risk getting caught out.

e-voting by contrast gets more complicated the deeper into the system you go. As such, the number of people who understand how it works, reduces as you go deeper into the details of it. And the number of people who know how to detect tampering is even smaller again. To rig an election you would only need to take control of a small number of people who between them have enough access to modify whatever you want and get away with it completely undetected.