mhaire_s wrote: <rant> I'm a professional computer programmer. I usually vote FF. But not this time. For the first time in my life I'm going to vote for the blue shirts. I can't believe I just said that. It was that eVoting fiasco that did it. That *so* annoyed me. The architecture was totally wrong. I nearly cried it was that bad. We are the second largest software producers in the world and we come up with that crap. Jesus! Surely we could of done better, a lot *better* than a unreadable, proprietary system lacking even a decent VVAT. Jesus, not even a decent parity check! Therfore, I am not voting FF. <end rant>
stepbar wrote: Is that the ONLY reason? <Support FG BTW>
mhaire_s wrote: I am passionate about what I do. I care. This is all the reason I need. We are so much more better that this. This is all I have to say.
cm2000 wrote: as a computer programmer you should vote fianna fail. fianna fail see the science/computing/engineering sectors as the forefronts of a good and sustainable economy. in 1997 Pat Rabbit had responsibility for reasearch and development. the dept of education and science had a budget for r and d of £0000000. since then our domestic research and development has increased immesurably. this innovation will probably secure you a job in years to come when we can't rely so heavily on foreign industry.
gandalf wrote: Actually this months Village magazine has an interesting article that lists the top 20 of broken government promises. Here is a quick list of them. Check the mag out for the backgrounds. Improve A&E Services - Broken Permanently end hospital waiting lists by the end of 2004 - Broken Deal with capacity issues at Dublin Airport building a new pier by 2003 - broken Metro Line to Dublin Airport by 2007 - Broken Implement the National Roads programme by 2006 - Broken All Schools will attain modern standards by 2007 - Broken Reduce Class Sizes for Children under 9 in Five years - Broken Garda Numbers - Increase Garda Numbers by 2000 - Broken Expand Social Housing to meet the housing needs of 15000 per annum - Broken Tax, ensure 80 per cent of all taxpayers pay the lower rate within 5 years - Broken Reduce persistant poverty below 2% - Broken Promise to increase overseas aid to 0.7% of GNP by 2007 (Made at the UN by Bertie) - Broken Promise to review ethics in Public Office measures and where necessary improve them - No surprise this one was Broken Introduce a proceeds of corruption act - Broken Elimate any potential financial influence on decision making process and to prevent corruption - Broken Allow people access to publically held information under the Freedom of Information act - Broken Make sure that discharges of untreated sewage from cities and towns will cease by 2003 - The people of Galway definately know this one was Broken.
gandalf wrote: Lots of broken promises.
brianthebard wrote: Ok most of them I know didn't happen, but what's wrong with the FoIA? what does it not allow you to look at?
• Freedom of Information is a basic democratic right of the people to have information about decisions affecting their lives, and amendments to the FOI Act inevitably affect the rights of citizens. The main recommendations in the report will have a negative and detrimental impact on the rights of citizens, and to suggest that amendments based on the report do not change the rights of ordinary citizens is misleading. • The Report of the High Level Review Group represents the views only of the senior civil servants tasked by the Government. As the report was not based on any consultation with the Information Commissioner, any independent experts, any citizen or public stakeholders, it does not reflect any inclusive, considered or balanced review of how the FOI Act may be improved to the benefit of all. To enact legislation based on the report without further consultation and input from the many stakeholders affected would be contrary to the principles of participatory democracy. • The ICCL welcomes the detailed and considered commentary of the Information Commissioner on the Report and its implications on legislative change, and demands that full consideration be given to his report before any further steps are taken to amend the FOI Act. • The ICCL notes that the HLRG contains many assertions as to the problems with the FOI Act, but provides no examples of how this has happened, or provided no empirical examples of how the current system has damaged the effectiveness of government. The ICCL opposes restrictions on the right to information in the absence of clear and justifiable evidence that there is harm being caused to the functioning of government, or to individuals by the operation of the Act. • The ICCL strongly opposes the approach of the report to seek greater categories of exemptions to the FOI Act. The ICCL believes that a human rights compliant, and a pro freedom of information approach, is to start with the assumption that access to information should be permitted and then to identify specific harms to an individual or to the public good and interest which would result form disclosure of the content of a particular document. • The recommendation to change the discretion of a Head of Department to refuse access to Cabinet records, to a mandatory refusal of access completely reverses the presumption in favour of access to documents. The creation of a regime where there is automatic refusal of a request with no regard to the type of record sought, no regard as to whether the information may already be in the public sphere, no regard to the public interest in having access to the record, or any harm caused by its release flies in the face of a culture of transparency and accountability. • The recommendation to widen the type of record which could be automatically refused from records solely for the purpose of the transaction of Government business to records primarily for that purpose will again remove a category of documents out of the reach of citizens, without regard to the merits of the request. The interpretation that a record was created primarily for the purpose Government business can be used widely to exclude access to documents which are used for purposes other than Government meetings but may at some stage have been used in a government meeting. • The imposition of fees beyond those of the costs has direct negative implications specifically for non-commercial users of the FOI Act - that is individual citizens and non-profit organisations that may represent the interests of citizens. Where charges for expenses incurred are permitted, and indeed significant fees are often charged for requests, the imposition of an additional fee for a request requires further justification. The HLRG makes clear that the recommendation to introduce a fee is indeed in part to have a deterrent effect. The ICCL believes that using costs as a deterrent factor is inappropriate, when there is the power to refuse frivolous and vexatious requests. INTRODUCTION The Irish Council for Civil Liberties (An Chomhairle um Chearta Daonna) is an independent non-governmental organisation that works to promote and defend human rights and civil liberties. It was founded in 1976 by, among others, Mary Robinson, Kader Asmal and Donal Barrington. ICCL was the first body to campaign for freedom of information (hereinafter "FOI") legislation in Ireland as far back as 1978 and was involved in consultations with Government leading up to the enactment of the Freedom of Information Act 1997. During that campaign the ICCL together with the Let in the Light Campaign set out a number of core principles which should form the heart of FOI legislation. Those principles included: • A general presumption in favour of access to documents must lie at the heart of the legislation. • Fees, if any, charged for access to documents must be set at a modest level, particularly in relation to requests for access to personal files, where they should be nominal. • Exemptions from access to documents must be drafted as precisely as possible, particularly in the area of policy advice. • Access may only be refused where there is a demonstrable, clear and present danger to acquired specified interests, the protection of which might reasonably be regarded as necessary for the maintenance of a democratic society, or necessary to the reasonable right to privacy of individual citizens. Where the disclosure of a document might threaten the public or an individual's interests, as defined above, it should still be disclosed if the information which threatens these interests can be 'blacked out' or otherwise withheld. • Detriment to the reputation of an elected official, of a department of government or of a political party interest is not a ground for refusal.
Voipjunkie wrote: I wonder how many of these are from the 1997 election nevermind the 2002 one alot done more to do my arse.
cm2000 wrote: as a computer programmer you should vote fianna fail.
Dalfiatach wrote: I'm a programmer, traditional FF voter, and it was e-voting did it for me too. That was, IMO, something very close to an attempted coup.
wow sierra wrote: I think the transfer of the surplus votes would have been fairer also under the evoting system.
Macy wrote: But it didn't - it still went with a random selection rather than calculating it proportionally. imo this was a deliberate tatic to make it impossible for any hard copy backup, check and recount to be effective.
brim4brim wrote: Of course e-voting is about rigging elections. It is in almost every country its been implemented. There is no safe way to do e-voting if you don't have some kind of paper trail as everything is hackable. You could make it very difficult though but FF didn't even try to get proper systems. e-voting has more holes than the titanic. That's why politicians love it.
