General Irish politics discussion thread

markodaly

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120666269#Comment_120666269

If the electorate doesn't trust the voting system, then that, indeed, could undermine our democracy itself.

To be honest, when it was announced that in GE 21 that SF won the popular vote yet somehow ended up in opposition there were whole swathes of people scratching their heads telling us how the election was stolen and that FF and FG were robbing people of their win.

There are many many people out there who don't have a notion of the basics of PR-STV works, never mind how a potential block-chain type of e-voting system could work.

rock22

I have to admit to being part of that group who don't " have a notion .. how a potential block-chain type of e-voting system could work."

Could you explain what a block-chain type of e-voting system is ?

Could you explain why it would be better than the STV multi seat system we have now?

And could you explain how it would work?

VinLieger

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120666918#Comment_120666918

Yes they were living in the country where they weren't allowed to vote, it was the right thing to do but unfortunately at the time people had to be convinced of that. Looking back now its obvious it was the right thing to do but you are still yet to convince us why this change is the right thing to do bar saying "because everyone else does it" or "its self evident".

Also this is nothing close to being the same as the suffragettes.

markodaly

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120666992#Comment_120666992

PR-STV stands for Proportional Representation - Single Transferable Vote.

That is the electoral system we have. It is how in essence Leo Varadkar is the Taoiseach yet got elected on the 5th count in his home constituency.

Other systems are FTTP or First Past the Post like they have in the US and UK. Basically, the winner takes all.

Blockchain eVoting is how the votes are balloted and counted using blockchain technology as a way to make sure votes are not tampered wth retrospectively.

Here is a paper of an implementation of it.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1319157822002221

PR-STV and blockchain e-voting are two separate things. I am not, nor never did say we change one with the other as one is an electoral system, another is a way to cast and count votes.

Changing PR-STV to something else is another discussion and may have merit.

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120666124#Comment_120666124

What tech is there that ensures that the overall system is auditable while still protecting the confidentiality of the secret ballot, and prevents vote selling and duress voting?

Why should postal voting be extended to all who wish to avail of it? What risks arise from this, such as vote selling and duress voting?

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120667025#Comment_120667025

"After ending time, the voter can verify their casted vote, ensuring verifiability. "

So the voter can also sell their vote. And the voter can be put under duress by a spouse or parent or employer to vote in a certain way.

There's a reason why we vote in private, individual polling booths. This is one of the important protections in our current system, which you seem prepared to wipe away for no apparent reason. Just because.

I thought we had moved on from blockchain being the solution the everything. It's just a bit 2019.

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120667787#Comment_120667787

This. It's not enough that a voting system has integrity; people have to be confident that it has integrity, or democracy is damaged. And a voting system that operates on technology that people don't understand, and that they know from common experience often operates in an irregular way to produce bad outcomes, is never going to command that confidence.

We know computer systems can be hacked. We know controls can be evaded so as to perpetrate frauds. These things happen all the time; they are not rare events. If someone has developed a miraculous technology that solves these problems, most people's attitude is going to be well, deploy that technology in other areas, and demonstrate its efficacy and reliability in the real world. And we have five or ten years of experience of no hacking, no data breaches, no identity theft, no financial frauds, no lost cryptocurrency or stolen NFTs, then come and talk to us about rolling out a voting system that utilises this technology.

VinLieger

Theres a great XKCD for this exact discussion

Peregrinus

There is an apt XKCD for almost any occasion, but this one is particularly apt.

rock22

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120667025#Comment_120667025

I am very familiar with our(and other) voting systems. My question was about "how a potential block-chain type of e-voting system could work"(quote markdaly).

But thanks for the link to the paper. On the second page of the paper, it has this sentence and reference

, it is possible to build a reliable and secure electronic voting system (Barnes and Perry, YYYY).

However the reference, Barnes and Perry, is missing from the reference list ( as are many other references). I don't trust this paper, it seems extraordinary that it ever passed peer review with so many dead references.

If we can't trust the academic papers that advance e-voting then why would we trust the e-voting system itself?

As @Peregrinus wrote, "It's not enough that a voting system has integrity; people have to be confident that it has integrity, or democracy is damaged"

Most people do have confidence with our paper based system. Why create uncertainty about our electoral system

markodaly

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120667787#Comment_120667787

I've already linked to a paper in regard to blockchain technology that is tamper-proof.

As to postal votes, why not? They do this in other countries? Why can't someone vote early, say the week of the election? If it improves voter turnout and accessibility, that should be a good thing. Or again, are we believe Irish Exceptionalism?

Anyone familiar with the issues of voter registration in the US should be well aware of tactics used mostly by the Republican party to suppress voter turnout in some areas. This is why in many, mainly Southern states one cannot vote by post, but in other states, mostly 'blue' states you can.

As to vote selling and duress voting. Is that an actual thing that can swing elections? There is a strong whiff of MAGA 'they stole the election' of that question.

markodaly

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120668793#Comment_120668793

This. It's not enough that a voting system has integrity; people have to be confident that it has integrity, or democracy is damaged.

So are you saying that those in the US who say the election was stolen had a point, because they had absentee ballots, and they used e-voting systems?

Fox News peddled this line and it cost them $1 Billion in an out-of-court settlement after being sued by the manufacturers of some of these e-voting machines.

I'm surprised the argument against e-voting machines and things like postal ballots is lifted straight from the Tucker Carlson and Donald Trump playbook. Not a great look or argument to be honest, because it's an entirely false and made-up narrative, but there are a sizeable proportion number of people in the US who believe this conspiracy theory.

The thing is, say we didn't have e-voting machines and postal ballots, some other half-baked story would have been cooked up to discredit Biden of his election win.

This is why I mentioned vaccines and climate change, along with e-voting. Some people just want to distrust something regardless because they lack the comprehension and intelligence to even try and understand it, and eg... because the men in black suits from the NWO are after your children for a paedo ring.. or something.

markodaly

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120668831#Comment_120668831

Ironic, I saw that two year's ago when Trump was moaning about his election loss. Thats the side you are taking on this.

Its cute but meaningless at the end of the day.

markodaly

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120668958#Comment_120668958

Here is another paper.

https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8457919

And another

https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/155779036.pdf

and another

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3648870

and other

https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/21/17/5874

There are tonnes of similar papers out there. If you have an issue with them all, perhaps you should have been an academic.

Again, these are just papers, and theories at the moment, but there are countries like Estonia seriously looking at implementing this technology in e-voting.

E-voting already happens in many many jurisdictions all around the world, the blockchain bit is an add-on to try and create a system that is more secure.

Sam Russell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120666124#Comment_120666124

The problem with the eVoting system we chose to go with, and then abandon at great cost, without ever implementing it fully, had a few problems.

1. It did not mimic the current paper and pencil ballot paper we have used since the founding of the state.
2. It relied on already outdated hardware, and foreign owned copyrighted software which our authorities had no right to inspect. [AFAIK]
3. It was not possible to verify the votes cast were actually handled correctly because - well, because of 2 above.
4. The actual trial ended up by the final result being declared with all the intervening rounds - well - just not announced. This resulted in a prominent minister being dumped out.
5. The hardware had to be built (at great expense) and stored between use (at great expense) and maintained (at great expense) and (if we had actually deployed the machines) set up at each polling centre (at great expense) and units that failed, would have had to be replaced in a hurry (at great expense).

A pencil just needs sharpening. The ballot papers just need punching with a validating code.

Now if I were doing it now, I would use a iPad (or similar) or mobile phone type device with a - xxxx. No I would not.

I would use a ballot paper exactly as we have. Then use a character recognition scanner to transfer the votes cast into a computer file - each ballot paper would have a machine readable serial number for traceability, and kept in an order that would allow rapid location.

Any problem papers would be transferred to a person for checking and deciding the intention of the voter. A random selection of papers would be selected for manual checking against the votes recorded. So a voter or candidate would be completely sure the system is completely reliable, open, fair, and verifiable without compromising the secrecy of the ballot.

Now the computer has recorded all votes cast as actually cast. The computer then calculates the result, but each stage (count) is announced in sequence to keep the excitement of the count going, with possible pauses in between stages for dramatic effect.

We went for eVoting instead of eCounting.

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120669151#Comment_120669151

You're not getting it. Being tamper-proof isn't the issue.

The issue is the direct conflict being the requirement for a secret ballot and the requirement for the voting process to be auditable. If you allow the voter to verify their vote, you allow them to sell their vote, or to be put under duress to vote.

Whether Trump shares this view or not is a red herring, as you well know. It doesn't make it right or wrong.

There's a reason why we vote individually, in private, in a polling booth. It prevents duress voting and vote buying or selling. These lessons have been hard learnt in the history of running elections. And you want to hand the election over to the tech bros, for no good reason. Just because.

What benefit would arise from such a fundamental change to the electoral system.

markodaly

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120669268#Comment_120669268

A fair point there.

Yes, the execution of e-voting here left a lot to be desired, which was my point about the Civil Service making a mess of it.

A good idea on the way we could count votes electronically.

We could extend this to postal voting.

A ballot could have two unique ID's, think a SHA or MD5 hash. One hash for the voter, one for the ballot paper itself.

A voter fills it out, and sends it in.

Ballots get scanned by someone working in the count centre.

The voter gets an email/postal mail stating that their vote was recorded.

Now, I know we have postal votes in most jurisdictions and they probably have a system down to a tee, so not sure why we have to reinvent the wheel.

I think if we are ever to look at this again, we will need baby steps as the big bang approach we tried before utterly failed.

markodaly

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120669291#Comment_120669291

You're not getting it. Being tamper-proof isn't the issue.

That is precisely the argument here.

The argument is that 'is it 100% secure and tamper-proof' when all these edge cases trotted out, yet when I point out that this is the line used by Trump, Fox, Tucker Carlson etc... people get uneasy.

Well maybe stop peddling the same conspiracy theories.

You brought up vote selling and voting under duress as edge cases. I countered by asking if it is even an issue that swings elections.

You ignored it.

We already allow some people to cast a postal vote. How do we know that there isn't vote selling going on, or that some old person in a nursing home is voting some way under duress? Do you advocate getting rid of postal votes totally? Or are you just straw-manning?

VinLieger

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120669191#Comment_120669191

LOL its really not election machines are different to voting software and block chain solutions which is what you are refferring to, who won that court case again? Thanks for proving the point of the comic that you have no clue about what you are talking about.

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120669365#Comment_120669365

It's often fairly painful on Boards when someone new to the territory decides they are a world-leading expert on housing, or healthcare, or, in this case, electronic voting, despite have no knowledge or experience in the issue. Do us a favour and please go and do some basic research, so we don't have to hold your hand and step you through all the well established risks and dangers that are understood by those who've been involved in these issues.

The electronic voting systems in place in the USA don't allow for individual vote verification outside of the polling booth. That's why vote selling and duress voting are not issues. Postal voting is allowed in very limited numbers and only for very particular reasons to put strict limits on potential exposure to vote selling and duress voting. In most cases here, you could take all postal votes out of a count, and it wouldn't have a material impact on candidates elected.

And now, you want to remove these hard fought and hard won protections, just because.

Still no actual reason, no rationale, no benefit of electronic voting that you'd like to put on the table?

markodaly

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120669395#Comment_120669395

Ok, so your objection is purely based on blockchain. Not e-voting or the machines themselves. So you are OK with e-voting then?

As per the court case. Fox settled out of court and paid $787 million to avoid having to go to court.

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-65320001

Fox issued a statement admitting it aired false allegations regarding 'rigged' voting machines.

Do you admit that the stuff Trump and his cheerleaders in the right-wing press said about e-voting was false? Or do you believe their version of events?

markodaly

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120669814#Comment_120669814

It's often fairly painful on Boards when someone new to the territory decides they are a world-leading expert on housing, or healthcare, or, in this case, electronic voting, despite have no knowledge or experience in the issue.

True, I hope you are referring to someone else, as I never said I was an expert.

The electronic voting systems in place in the USA don't allow for individual vote verification outside of the polling booth. 

Correct. So are you happy if such a system was implemented in Ireland?

That's why vote selling and duress voting are not issues.

So its not an issue, but you want to raise it as an issue?

 Postal voting is allowed in very limited numbers and only for very particular reasons to put strict limits on potential exposure to vote selling and duress voting. In most cases here, you could take all postal votes out of a count, and it wouldn't have a material impact on candidates elected.

Ok, so postal votes currently are not an issue, but if we expand postal votes to be used more widely its an issue all of a sudden, even though you cannot prove to us, why that would be the case, or indeed paint a scenario that enough people sold their votes or voted in such a way to swing the election.*

Postal votes are allowed in the US and is used by many. This was the angle of attack for many of Trump's attack dogs. You are now parroting this stuff here.

Still no actual reason, no rationale, no benefit of electronic voting that you'd like to put on the table?

I did point them out, but you disagreed.

If you are having a go at electronic voting, then you are by proxy supporting the MAGA narrative about the election being stolen in the US.

*has there been any proven case in Ireland where someone sold their vote of changed their vote under duress? Any?

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120669878#Comment_120669878

So you're not an expert, but you think national policy should be based around your inexpert opinion on the matter?

Our postal votes are small, but the postal votes in America are far away. It's like trying to explain to Dougal, honestly.

Please, please, please do some basic reading on electronic voting, as I don't really have time to hand-hold you through some basic learning.

The reason why we don't have proven cases about vote selling and duress voting in Ireland is because we don't have post-voting verification of votes available. Our current system (the one you're advocating to throw away) prevents vote selling and duress voting.

Your question and your position is a bit like saying that, because we don't have any big plane crashes in Ireland, we shouldn't bother with all those airplane safety and pilot safety regulations. Please think it through before one of us dies.

Concerns about eVoting were around long before Trump came to the table, and will be around long after Trump departs. The fact that Trump tried to jump on the bandwagon does not invalidate those concerns. Trump is not relevant to this discussion.

And still no actual rationale, no benefit, no objective from you - no actual reason to go for electronic voting.

markodaly

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120669909#Comment_120669909

Ah, so now it gets personal with the Fr. Ted references.

The reason why we don't have proven cases about vote selling and duress voting in Ireland is because we don't have post-voting verification of votes available. Our current system (the one you're advocating to throw away) prevents vote selling and duress voting.

We allow postal votes (in limited circumstances), do we not?

Those votes can be sold or changed under duress, can they not?

You brought vote selling and duress voting in the debate, yet we cannot even prove it happens at all. That sounds like scaremongering to me, the type of stuff Trump would say.

Its a poor argument to take some scary rabbit out of the hat, and point to a 'What if' when that 'What if' cannot even to be proved to have happened at all, if ever.

Many many countries in the OECD and EU offer postal votes to many people, in a more open and flexible fashion than us. Has there been a case where widespread vote selling or changing votes under duress has swung an election in one of these states?

Concerns about eVoting were around long before Trump came to the table, and will be around long after Trump departs. The fact that Trump tried to jump on the bandwagon does not invalidate those concerns. Trump is not relevant to this discussion.

I think it's entirely relevant if people, resistant to any change parrot the same narrative and fears told by Trump and his loons in the media. It makes their positions look paranoid.

VinLieger

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120669842#Comment_120669842

Trumps claims about e-voting fraud in the presidential election were wrong.

However e-voting like ballot voting is not 100% secure they are just vulnerable in different ways and the idea of block chain voting is simply the stuff of crypto bros fantasies and nothing more.

Now stop trying to derail the thread and start giving actual reasons for changing anything beyond the nonsense you've provided so far.

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120669951#Comment_120669951

How many reports do you want before we move on?

https://www.thejournal.ie/donegal-postal-voting-state-papers-2501348-Jan2016/

We don't have issues with postal voting because we restrict postal voting tightly. Your logic is entirely faulty. It's like saying we don't have with quality of donated blood, so we should remove the quality restrictions on donating blood. You seem to have missed the fact that the reason why we don't have issues with postal voting is because we restrict postal voting tightly.

And still no reason, no rationale, no benefit - remind me again why we would go down this road please?

markodaly

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120669959#Comment_120669959

You never answered the first question.

Are you OK with using e-voting machines in Ireland?

You admit that Trump's conspiratorial claims about rigged voting machines were wrong, yet you seem to dish out a fair bit of fearmongering and scare tactics yourself, from his playbook when it comes to the topic of changing our slow way of submitting and counting votes because <insert trump argument here>

As per your dismissive attitude to blockchain technology, better tell Estonia and other countries that.

https://e-estonia.com/solutions/cyber-security/ksi-blockchain/

The corporate world is also getting on that bandwagon that apparently is the stuff of 'crypto bros'

For the record, I don't own or never have owned a cryptocurrency.

markodaly

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120669983#Comment_120669983

OK, so we have one incident from 40 years ago, which probably had paramilitary involvement.

And because of that, the idea of offering postal votes to more people cannot ever be considered.

One would think that perhaps improving the system should be of bigger concern, rather than doing nothing.

As I said, a postal vote with a way to verify that vote was recorded should be doable and possible.

Or is every other country in the world doing en-mass postal votes doing it wrong?

markodaly

The top three countries in the Democratic Index are:

Norway

New Zealand

Iceland

All of them offer postal/absentee ballots to those who need/want them.

They must all be stupid.

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120670449#Comment_120670449

Seeing as you keep ignoring it - I'll just ask one question - remind me again why we would go down this road please?