General Irish politics discussion thread

ICR scanning is a known quantity in terms of operators and cost per scan, and government scanning was already done in secure private company locations.

Absolutely no reason that could not be done.

Pete_Cavan

Surely if going down the e-counting route, the ballot box itself would also have to change to something more modern which facilitates the e-count. So instead of folding the ballot paper and stuffing it in the box, voters lay their ballot paper face down and rollers pull it into the box where all are neatly stacked, transportable and ready to be fed into the scanners.

The sheer number of ballot papers would likely mean the scanning process would take several hours, and I'm sure there would be some checks before any tallies are announced so I think the "fun" of having results drip feed in would remain.

Sam Russell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120683221#Comment_120683221

That is an approach I would not have considered but it makes absolute sense to have the ballots actually presented for counting.

Obviously, once the system is tried a few times, it becomes normal and would be of no real interest to the general population.

For political nerds, and university political depts, then access to the raw date would be priceless. At the moment, first preference data is all that they are certain of, and a limited second preference data. After that it gets difficult.

Raw data allows significant information to be gleaned to show voting behaviour.

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120683034#Comment_120683034

Is there any reason why it should be done?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120683665#Comment_120683665

Ease, faster initial count, faster recounts. All rounds done immediately. All preferences/transfers go directly to candidate, no batch count

Can be done in one location, because of this speed, so more efficient use of resources and personnel. Again, ICR is a known quantity so we know the staffing requirements. It's not a novel system with unknown wow

You said no business case, there is. Whether it's strong enough or not could be debated but unlike e-voting, where there are immediate and catastrophic negatives which completely outweigh any consideration, it would be a cost/reward exercise

I've mentioned, previously, that I see nothing wrong with current set up. Do I think that there's efficiency gains to ICR? Maybe and worth costing out

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120683371#Comment_120683371

Of all the things we need to invest money on, access to raw data for political nerds is a long, long way down the list of priorities. And I say this as a political nerd who has done tallying. It's certainly fascinating to see raw ballot papers, but it's hard to see what benefit would arise for anyone other than the political nerds from this.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120683828#Comment_120683828

Why would there be recounts?

It would certainly be faster. Changing the rules to ensure that all preferences and transfers travel would involve fractional votes, and would be a significant change to our voting system. We really need to tread carefully, and not screw around with a working system for the sake of some technology.

If you're going to do it 'all in one location', you're removing a significant element of the transparency of the existing system, where the people involved for each candidate can physically see their local boxes. You're pushing people further away from the system.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120684033#Comment_120684033

People will always request recounts, e-count of unconsested ballots rapid. Only need to physically recount illegible ballots

Why would all in one location prevent oversight?

Why would assigning transfers automatically, upon elimination, be a huge change?

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120684367#Comment_120684367

The idea of a recount is to eliminate human error. What’s the point of running a second electronic count again? You’re just going to get the same result.

If all the boxes are in a central location, you won’t have the local experience people to verify.

Peregrinus

I would have thought that one of the advantages of e-counting is that you don't need to transport ballot papers to a central location for counting. Scanning of ballots can be dispersed as widely as you like — ballots can be scanned at the polling stations where they are cast, if you want — and the data then uploaded, consolidated with data from other scanning locations and then, once all scanning locations have completed their scans and uploaded their data, processed centrally. If it's speed you're after, you'll have the result within a few minutes of the last scanning location uploading its scans.

Except . . .

There'll be a proportion of ballot papers that can't be scanned, either because the paper itself is damaged in way that the scanner can't deal with, or because it is marked in an irregular, ambiguous or hard-to-interpret fashion. Those papers will require a human judgment about whether they are valid and, if so, what the preferences indicated are, and the decision will have to be manually entered. Since that's a sensitive process that should be conducted by a senior official and that should be open to scrutiny by the candidates or their agents, those ballot papers will have to be brought to some central location, so the count can't be completed until that happens.

Peregrinus

It seems to me that the main advantage, or at least one of the main advantages, of e-scanning is greater speed — you know sooner who has won the election and who has lost. But in the Irish context that may not be so big a deal as in other countries.

In most Westminster democracies, change of government, or confirmation of the sitting government, happens immediately the overall result become clear — often on election night itself. If it become clear that the current government won't have a majority and the opposition will, the prime minister makes a more-or-less graceful public concession and proceeds immediately to the monarch/governor-general to resign and to advise that the leader of the opposition be appointed instead. Thus the speed with which the count is conducted has a direct impact on who governs the country.

No so in Ireland. Constitutionally, nobody can become Taoiseach without securing the support of a majority in Dáil Éireann. So, regardless of how clear the result of the count is, there is no change of government until Dáil Éireann reassembles to vote on who should be Taoiseach. Consequently, completing the count in a few hours rather than a few days will make no practical difference.

rock22

Would transfers of fractional votes (from distribution of surplus) be consistant with a STV voting system?

Does STV not depend on the transfer of a single vote cast by a single voter. Not a range of fractional votes based on that single voters preferences?

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120685237#Comment_120685237

No, and in fact fractional votes are transferred in the Seanad electoral system .But this isn't because they are counting all of a voter's preferences to determine transfers — rather, they are counting one preference only (the next effective preference) from all the voters.

The issue doesn't arise when a candidate is eliminated, since all the votes credited to that candidate are transferred. But when a candidate is elected, only the surplus is transferred. You can't identify any particular ballot papers as being the surplus ballot papers, so the theoretically most accurate thing to do may be to look at the next effective preferences on all ballot papers, and then apportion the surplus. A mathematically accurate apportionment may require transfers of fractions of votes, to avoid (or at least reduce the extent and impact of) rounding up or down.

In the panel elections in the Seanad the total electorate is only about a eleven or twelve hundred voters. In a panel that elects five seats, the quota will be one-sixth of that — say, 180 votes. So it's easy to see that a candidate might be elected with a surplus of 10 votes or fewer. As there could easily be 20 candidates in a panel election, and the 190 people who voted for the elected candidate might have between them have given next preferences to, say, 15 different candidates, there's an obvious problem of fairness and accuracy if you can only transfer whole numbers of votes. So in Seanad elections they'll calculate transfers to three significant figures. (They do this by multiplying each ballot paper by 1,000, and then counting in the usual way.)

Sam Russell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120685237#Comment_120685237

Just to expand on the point made above, consider the following.

1. A candidate gains 2 quotas on the first count, and a second candidate gets zero votes, but is second choice on all the candidate who got 2 quotas. So even gaining zero first preference votes, is elected on count two.
2. If I vote for three candidates as A,B,C but no others. Candidate A gets elected with a surplus of 10% of their total vote when elected. Whose votes should be redistributed? I would consider that 90% of my vote goes to candidate A, and 10% goes to candidate B. If that candidate is also elected with a 10% surplus, the 9% of my vote stays with candidate B, and 1% goes to candidate C. Now if candidate 3 is eliminated, my 1% vote just dies - unallocated. So my one vote went as follows - 0.9 to candidate A, 0.09 to candidate B, and 0.01 vote unallocated. So I have cast one vote.

When a candidate is elected on any count, then that candidate is properly elected. That needs to be understood, to understand the STV system.

Just as the doctor who scrapes through last place in the medical exams is still called Doctor and can work as a Medical Doctor, just as the doctor who came first in the exams. The quality of the medical skills of either doctor may not depend on their performance in the exams.

rock22

@Sam Russell " 0.9 to candidate A, 0.09 to candidate B, and 0.01 vote unallocated. So I have cast one vote."

I have to say, that is not how I always understood the counting to work. As explained to me many years ago,

If candidate A achieves 110% of quota then 10% is surplus. My vote( if i voted for cand A) , is either counted to elect Candidate A or is part of those votes transferred. But it is not split and cannot be used to elect candidate A and be transferred to candidate B . i.e. it is a 'Single' transferrable vote and is transferred wholly or not at all.

My understanding must have been wrong.

Sam Russell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120686038#Comment_120686038

Your understanding of the current system is correct.

However, this is the only way when physical ballots are counted. It is not possible to transfer 10% of a ballot paper. This does not answer the question as to which vote of the candidates surplus should be transferred. Do we transfer the last votes to arrive, or mix all the candidates votes to get a random sample?

The computer algorithm can be designed to do any variation, but pure STV would follow my description.

When e-counting is introduced, various strategies could be trialled to see if it makes any difference.

rock22

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120686119#Comment_120686119

Not just that it is only way to do it, i think the single transferable vote is written into the design of the voting system itself.

.You are thus suggesting then that the system be changed

Sam Russell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120686238#Comment_120686238

Not at all.

The single in STV just means each voter has but one vote. The transferable means that only one quota is required to be elected and any surplus is transferred to the next valid candidate on the ballot paper. In a paper environment, practicality demands a whole ballot paper must be transferred, and current practice is that papers from the last bundle gets to be transferred.

Now, either a single ballot is transferred (a single paper ballot) or a proportion of a ballot paper (in a e-counting environment). The second way makes sense in a computerised system.

Water John

Are you sure it's papers from the last bundle are transferred?

Sam Russell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120688195#Comment_120688195

YES.

Francis McM

And in other news, the Eurozone, like Ireland is in Recession.

Quote "The eurozone confounded previous forecasts and shrank for two consecutive quarters" 

https://www.politico.eu/article/eurozone-is-in-a-technical-recession/

Interesting to note the UK is not in recession, although to list to many here you would think it was.

Brussels Sprout

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120698352#Comment_120698352

A recession is two or more periods of negative GDP growth. Nothing more nothing less.

1. The Eurozone having a recession based on two successive months of -0.1% is about as technical of a recession that you can get.
2. Ireland's GDP figures are effectively meaningless given how skewed they are by the accounts of large multinational corporations who are based here.
3. The UK, while not in a technical recession isn't exactly setting the world on fire with its projected growth either. They're not going to be crowing about their economic miracle anytime soon.

The big problem for all 3 right now is inflation.

FrancieBrady

The 3 main papers covering internal wranglings in FG. Polls having an effect?

https://twitter.com/businessposthq/status/1667788769976635392

Pete_Cavan

Harris to me is no more popular than Leo, even less popular I would have said. If there is a change before the next GE, surely Coveney is the only realistic option, otherwise just stick with Leo and give a new leader a clean slate after the GE.

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120701059#Comment_120701059

Would totally agree on Harris. Hari Kari by FG to have him as leader.

L1011

Harris is more openly right wing, they may think there are votes in that.

Larbre34

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120701370#Comment_120701370

I'd like to hear evidence for why you consider that he is. He may prove more right wing than his opponents for the leadership, but none of them are more to the right than Varadkar.

I've been saying for months that Varadkar would not stick around and all we are seeing now is some of the choreography emerging. Obviously Varadkar isn't going to signal his departure for at least another year, or else become a lame duck, but I would think a leadership contest around Oct 24.

The truth is that as many FG members and voters are as fed up with a Dublin leadership as non FG supporters are fed up with FG, so I'd say Harris will suffer for that association (Greystones is Dublin) and it's why I think Helen McEntee is in a box seat to take over ahead of Paschal or Harris.

Of course many members felt quite quickly that they made the wrong decision picking Varadkar over Coveney and that Coveney was hard done by, so it'll be interesting to see what his intentions are about standing again, he is very widely respected for his experience and his diplomacy in the Party.

retalivity

Lol Harris, the failed journalism student that was put in charge of Health and Higher Education. And a guy who looks and sounds like he's afraid of his own shadow. A sad indictment of politics in Ireland thay that clown was even elected, never mind a minister and in the talk to be a party leader.

I have no love for FG, but surely coveney is the best suited to lead them? Even McEntee would have more of a case.

.Donegal.

I think Coveney would have the most mainstream appeal and doesn’t really seem to engage in petty shite compared to some.

Harris would be terrible for FG and great for the opposition in my opinion. I’m not still not over what he said months in to the pandemic when he was minister of health. To paraphrase we have to remember there was 18 covids before and we never discovered a vaccine for them. Personally I don’t want someone that thick to be Taoiseach.

marno21

Coveney would be a very welcome replacement. He won the vote of party membership by a wide margin in 2017.

Harris or McEntee would be train wrecks.

It's high time FG actually had leadership that appealed to their membership/base and those likely to vote for them. Not putting in leaders who they think appeal to a certain cohort they'd like to chase for votes, who won't vote for FG anyway.

It's not a binary FG vs FF world anymore and FG needs a clear identity in a multi party Ireland. Trying to appeal to everyone won't work.

Pete_Cavan

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120701708#Comment_120701708

If looking to appeal to those outside of Dublin, could see HH as deputy leader. Can't see anyone other than Coveney having a positive effect on poling for FG, SF and FF would be delighted with anyone else.