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
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Should we drop Proportional Representation

124

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,031 ✭✭✭✭murphaph


    pixelburp wrote: »
    That's a fair point when you put it like that: certainly Ireland has benefitted from having avoided the larger upheavals in European politics over the last 100 years; for all the damage the DeValera monopoly managed throughout the 20th century, it still pales compared with - as you say - the persistence of political extremism as a boilerplate part of continental politics. Even in Germany, a country that reinvented itself into an arguably ideal version of Fedearlism IMO, it still struggles to properly rid itself of right wing extremism.

    But let's be further blunt here: what this entire conversation seems to come down to is either: I don't like FG/FF and want to throw the baby out with the bathwater; or "I like FPTP because it favours my team right this minute", and the inevitable, ongoing comparisons with UK as our metric for political structures.

    We never have these discussions about how we compare with France, Germany, Spain or Italy for instance (well, maybe not Italy as I'm not sure we'd have the stomach for a new Taoiseach every 12 months). It's always the UK. I mean I get it, it's just a shame we can't ever properly wriggle out of the UK's shadow.
    I live in Germany. We certainly have a problem with the far right but I am much happier to have them all grouped together on clearly identifiable right wing parties. If Germany had FPTP we'd have a UK situation and the CDU/CSU would have been infiltrated by the far right just like the Tories were.

    Ireland has proven that our system can and does work. Even given the tight election result in January we have managed to get a government that looks like it will go the distance.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,508 ✭✭✭✭ArmaniJeanss


    There is a case for eliminating any candidate (after first round surpluses are distributed) that fails to get 5% of a quota. That would speed counting, and eliminate the several loony no hopers that get a handful of votes each.

    Whilst I don't have an example to hand, there's probably been a case where two candidates from the same party both had ~4.9% at this stage. If whichever gets eliminated first transfers well to the other then the vote is maybe at 8.5/9% which is in the mix for the last seat in a 5-seater.
    So it seems potentially bad to just auto-eliminate them so early.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,664 ✭✭✭sid waddell


    I know we had the e-voting fiasco back in the day, but there were some positives to a properly developed e-voting or at least assisted counting system.

    The system that was rolled out was just lacking in transparency and reliant on far too many invisible 'black box' processes that you couldn't really audit properly.

    If we had a system that used, for example, optically scanned ballots, we could do a lot more to improve the speed and accuracy of the count, while still retaining the transparency of paper ballots and visible count processes. It would just be done a lot more quickly with OCR scanning and sorting. If you wanted to manually count any stage of the process, you still could.

    The problem is the system is relatively obscure, so it's always going to be a rather bespoke system.

    Probably won't happen though due to the technical challenges and the bad experience of the previous e-voting mess.

    Any kind of online system risks security problems, but also not being maintained as we only vote every few years, and you could easily foresee problems where there'd be question marks over IT budgets for voting infrastructure, which could easily end up with obsolete software and huge security risks developing over time.
    Even a cursory examination of what's happening with voting systems in America at the moment should turn anybody off any form of e-voting for life.

    Paper, pencil, box, hand counting is the best way and always will be.

    It's cheap, and most importantly, it's reliable.

    The Irish election count is a national ritual and a national treasure.

    It's fun, it's exciting, it's dramatic, and it is democracy in action.

    It should, never, ever change.


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,862 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    I know we had the e-voting fiasco back in the day, but there were some positives to a properly developed e-voting or at least assisted counting system.

    The system that was rolled out was just lacking in transparency and reliant on far too many invisible 'black box' processes that you couldn't really audit properly.

    If we had a system that used, for example, optically scanned ballots, we could do a lot more to improve the speed and accuracy of the count, while still retaining the transparency of paper ballots and visible count processes. It would just be done a lot more quickly with OCR scanning and sorting. If you wanted to manually count any stage of the process, you still could.

    The problem is the system is relatively obscure, so it's always going to be a rather bespoke system.

    Probably won't happen though due to the technical challenges and the bad experience of the previous e-voting mess.

    Any kind of online system risks security problems, but also not being maintained as we only vote every few years, and you could easily foresee problems where there'd be question marks over IT budgets for voting infrastructure, which could easily end up with obsolete software and huge security risks developing over time.

    You are correct to look at electronic counting after optical scanning. It preserves the ballot paper that would allow verification.

    The software would not change from one election to the next so would not require much maintenance.

    The universities might be interested in looking after the software in return for getting access to the annonomised data for research by their politics dept.

    It would be of great benefit for the Euro elections due to the large number of candidates and the huge number of votes that must be counted. The ballot papers were nearly a metre long.

    It would make more sense as the first attempt at electronic counting concentrated on the hardware, and allowed the Dutch software company to own the rights to the software. The hardware was obsolete before it was used, and cost a fortune despite never being used..


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 491 ✭✭YellowBucket


    Even a cursory examination of what's happening with voting systems in America at the moment should turn anybody off any form of e-voting for life.

    Paper, pencil, box, hand counting is the best way and always will be.

    It's cheap, and most importantly, it's reliable.

    The Irish election count is a national ritual and a national treasure.

    It's fun, it's exciting, it's dramatic, and it is democracy in action.

    It should, never, ever change.

    Not even if it could allow for full fractional distribution of votes and eliminated the random sampling element from PR-STV transfers?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,476 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    I know we had the e-voting fiasco back in the day, but there were some positives to a properly developed e-voting or at least assisted counting system.

    Electronic voting is inherently untrustworthy.
    If we had a system that used, for example, optically scanned ballots, we could do a lot more to improve the speed and accuracy of the count, while still retaining the transparency of paper ballots and visible count processes. It would just be done a lot more quickly with OCR scanning and sorting. If you wanted to manually count any stage of the process, you still could.

    What's the point though?

    You still can't trust the result without manual counting.

    We only have elections every few years as you say yourself. So what if some constituency has tight voting and a couple of recounts and takes a few days to sort out? It doesn't matter. And it gives time for candidates, parties and the public to digest the outcome. Getting a result of all counts ten minutes after polls closed just didn't feel right.

    Scrap the cap!



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,476 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    It would be of great benefit for the Euro elections due to the large number of candidates and the huge number of votes that must be counted. The ballot papers were nearly a metre long.

    Thing to do there is to cut out the no-hopers and dreamers by raising the bar a bit. A lot of them were just ego-strokers and/or protest candidates.

    If your constituency has over a million voters and covers a large chunk of the country you need substantial resources to mount a credible campaign.

    Scrap the cap!



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,872 ✭✭✭View


    Electronic voting is inherently untrustworthy.



    What's the point though?

    You still can't trust the result without manual counting.

    We only have elections every few years as you say yourself. So what if some constituency has tight voting and a couple of recounts and takes a few days to sort out? It doesn't matter. And it gives time for candidates, parties and the public to digest the outcome. Getting a result of all counts ten minutes after polls closed just didn't feel right.

    That’s a rather idiotic argument given that OCR is widely used on a daily basis.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,872 ✭✭✭View


    Quin_Dub wrote: »
    Exactly - You are voting for ALL the seats in your constituency , not just one.

    Ideally your vote should contribute in some way to the filling of each and every seat.

    Your vote doesn’t count toward the filling of each and every seat. It counts to electing one seat (unless you voted for the last candidate eliminated).


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,476 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    View wrote: »
    That’s a rather idiotic argument given that OCR is widely used on a daily basis.

    Idiotic? I don't think you understand the issues surrounding electronic voting at all.

    OCR had major problems when they tried it in Scotland, but the real problems with electronic voting begin AFTER votes are input.

    You can't trust the result without manual counting of ballots. It's a transparent, foolproof process which is extremely difficult to subvert.

    You haven't answered why we'd want to do this, either.

    Scrap the cap!



  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,862 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    Idiotic? I don't think you understand the issues surrounding electronic voting at all.

    OCR had major problems when they tried it in Scotland, but the real problems with electronic voting begin AFTER votes are input.

    You can't trust the result without manual counting of ballots. It's a transparent, foolproof process which is extremely difficult to subvert.

    You haven't answered why we'd want to do this, either.

    First, with the Euro elections, the constituency has milions of votes and dozens of candidates. It takes weeks to count, and is prone to errors where bundles of votes can go astray.

    Next, the OCR is very easy to check, where each bundle of scanned votes can be checked manually, by a person. This only needs to be done once.

    Next, the votes are counted electronically and the quota established.

    Next first count establishes the first preference numbers. Over quota surpluses are redistributed. (It could be done so fraction of votes are distributed - which is more accurate)

    Next, lowest candidates are eliminated. and their votes are distributed. And so on, with surpluses distributed (with fractions if that is the way).

    Ultimately, the seats are filled. Each phase is separate and published before continuing.

    What is wrong with that? It is used by the lottery every week.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,678 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Whilst I don't have an example to hand, there's probably been a case where two candidates from the same party both had ~4.9% at this stage. If whichever gets eliminated first transfers well to the other then the vote is maybe at 8.5/9% which is in the mix for the last seat in a 5-seater.
    So it seems potentially bad to just auto-eliminate them so early.
    Also undemocratic. It's obviously better to let the voters decide which of the low-first-preference-polling candidates gets eliminated.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,678 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    . . . . If we had a system that used, for example, optically scanned ballots, we could do a lot more to improve the speed and accuracy of the count, while still retaining the transparency of paper ballots and visible count processes. It would just be done a lot more quickly with OCR scanning and sorting. If you wanted to manually count any stage of the process, you still could.

    The problem is the system is relatively obscure, so it's always going to be a rather bespoke system.

    Probably won't happen though due to the technical challenges and the bad experience of the previous e-voting mess . . .
    The other reason is that it would cost a lot of money, for no great benefit.

    All it really does is to speed up the count. But to what purpose? There'll be no change of government until the Dail reassembles to elect a new Taoiseach, which won't be for two or three weeks. It makes no parctical difference whether the count is completed in four hours or four days.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,085 ✭✭✭✭BonnieSituation


    I know we had the e-voting fiasco back in the day, but there were some positives to a properly developed e-voting or at least assisted counting system.

    The system that was rolled out was just lacking in transparency and reliant on far too many invisible 'black box' processes that you couldn't really audit properly.

    If we had a system that used, for example, optically scanned ballots, we could do a lot more to improve the speed and accuracy of the count, while still retaining the transparency of paper ballots and visible count processes. It would just be done a lot more quickly with OCR scanning and sorting. If you wanted to manually count any stage of the process, you still could.

    The problem is the system is relatively obscure, so it's always going to be a rather bespoke system.

    Probably won't happen though due to the technical challenges and the bad experience of the previous e-voting mess.

    Any kind of online system risks security problems, but also not being maintained as we only vote every few years, and you could easily foresee problems where there'd be question marks over IT budgets for voting infrastructure, which could easily end up with obsolete software and huge security risks developing over time.

    I have absolutely no issue with our system continuing on and on as it is.

    An "e-counting" system has merit, and would rid us of the "basket of surpluses" issue. But realistically, even when things are tight we check, check, check.

    The lack of opportunity for corruption of the system is just too important to change it.

    Also, I find that we're pretty attached to the system and It's so simple. Why reinvent the wheel?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 69,538 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    View wrote: »
    That’s a rather idiotic argument given that OCR is widely used on a daily basis.

    Its also widely unreliable to this day.

    Look at the errors that can turn up when OCRing known-font printed texts. Then move that to handwriting...


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,476 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    What is wrong with that? It is used by the lottery every week.

    And here we arrive at the fundamental misunderstanding of the huge difference between transactions like banking or lotto, and electronic voting.

    Banking and the lotto are trustworthy because you can trace a transaction back to a particular person (account / ticket).

    With voting you must NOT be able to track a vote back to a particular person. So that person cannot have any assurance that their vote was counted correctly, or counted at all.

    But even if we could be assured that all votes were input into the system and input correctly, we still have no assurance that they have been processed correctly without doing a full manual count.

    There could be a systematic error in the processing of surpluses under a particular circumstance, for instance. Even with open source it would take huge effort in code auditing and testing to get to a reasonable level of confidence, and you still couldn't be sure that corner cases don't exist which would cause significant errors.

    So what if the euro count takes a long time? It's only once every five years, there are no by-elections, there can be no early dissolving of parliament. We'd be better off increasing the deposit if we think the process is too cumbersome.

    All of these issues were thrashed out in great detail when the e-voting machines thing was going on.

    I've still yet to hear a single advantage apart from "it's quicker" (so what?) and the fractional votes thing, the impact of which would be very marginal at best.

    Counting manually costs money, but e-voting costs a hell of a lot of money to do properly and to be certain that the result is correct you need to do a manual count as well anyway...

    Next, the OCR is very easy to check, where each bundle of scanned votes can be checked manually, by a person. This only needs to be done once.

    Sure it only needs to be done once... if you have first past the post.
    Under PR, each bundle of first preferences will have a lot of different second preferences, and so on. If you have fractional distribution of surpluses, you can't just take the surplus vote bundles and check the no.2s on those, you have to manually check all votes... and so on down the preferences.

    Scrap the cap!



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,335 ✭✭✭Bandana boy


    No


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,862 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell



    Next, the OCR is very easy to check, where each bundle of scanned votes can be checked manually, by a person. This only needs to be done once.
    Sure it only needs to be done once... if you have first past the post.
    Under PR, each bundle of first preferences will have a lot of different second preferences, and so on. If you have fractional distribution of surpluses, you can't just take the surplus vote bundles and check the no.2s on those, you have to manually check all votes... and so on down the preferences.

    I think you are misunderstanding this.

    When I lodge a cheque in an ATM, it gives me the amount it thinks it is and a photo of the cheque and asks me to verify that the amount is correct.

    I would assume if electronic counting was in place that each ballot paper would be shown to a person on a screen who would verify that the machine read numbers was as per the ballot paper. This would be done for each and every paper. If the correct values go into the system, then that is the job done.

    Now, the advantage of such a system is not just it is quicker, but it can use fractional votes on surplus transfers. The current system relies on the papers being randomised, which works. Then it relies on transferring the lower preferences but this is not correct but it is what they do, and have always done.

    If such a scheme was employed, then it must go step by step and not just announce - ' the winners are ---- ****, ****, ***!'. It must show each step and where the transfers went.

    Maybe just leave it as is. We know how much it costs, and how long it takes.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,294 ✭✭✭✭VinLieger


    I would assume if electronic counting was in place that each ballot paper would be shown to a person on a screen who would verify that the machine read numbers was as per the ballot paper. This would be done for each and every paper. If the correct values go into the system, then that is the job done.


    That sounds fine but what if the error/hack happens after that point in the system?


    Heres the thing with e-voting or e-counting is they are incredibly vulnerable and tbh i dont see a time when it could ever be any more secure simply due to the way technology works and how fast everything moves.


    If you have the ability to hack/change/break one machine its then incredibly easy to do the same to multiple machines.


    The main thing people complain about paper ballots is that they take so long to count is actually one of the key securities in that its such a large cumbersome system its virtually impossible to impact and cheat to such an extent as to alter the result after a ballot has been put in a box. To do so would require a multitude of people at every level of the ballot and counting system and keeping that quiet in this day and age would be next to impossible.


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,862 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    VinLieger wrote: »
    That sounds fine but what if the error/hack happens after that point in the system?


    Heres the thing with e-voting or e-counting is they are incredibly vulnerable and tbh i dont see a time when it could ever be any more secure simply due to the way technology works and how fast everything moves.


    If you have the ability to hack/change/break one machine its then incredibly easy to do the same to multiple machines.


    The main thing people complain about paper ballots is that they take so long to count is actually one of the key securities in that its such a large cumbersome system its virtually impossible to impact and cheat to such an extent as to alter the result after a ballot has been put in a box. To do so would require a multitude of people at every level of the ballot and counting system and keeping that quiet in this day and age would be next to impossible.

    Well, all paper based systems suffer from, for example, possible ballot stuffing - fill the ballot box up with your preferences prior to the first vote being counted - a favourite of many dictators across the globe. Then there is voter suppression - a favourite of Republican States in the USA. There must be plenty of other ways of distorting paper ballots. Another trick is to prevent the opponents even standing.

    All systems can be manipulated by the unscrupulous.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,294 ✭✭✭✭VinLieger


    Well, all paper based systems suffer from, for example, possible ballot stuffing - fill the ballot box up with your preferences prior to the first vote being counted - a favourite of many dictators across the globe. Then there is voter suppression - a favourite of Republican States in the USA. There must be plenty of other ways of distorting paper ballots. Another trick is to prevent the opponents even standing.

    All systems can be manipulated by the unscrupulous.

    The discussion is specifically related to Ireland though so while ballot stuffing is always possible again for it to be done on a level as to change a result similar to how dictators in other countries have blatantly done it would be easily discovered and publicised.

    Whereas gaining access to multiple machines and doing whatever is required would be far easier and less detectable.

    Yes all systems are vulnerable but the point of failure in an e-voting/e-counting system is far more vulnerable via undetectable methods than in a paper ballot and hand counting system.

    Also Voter suppression and the other methods you mentioned affect all polling methods so i don't think they are relevant to the discussion.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,476 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    I would assume if electronic counting was in place that each ballot paper would be shown to a person on a screen who would verify that the machine read numbers was as per the ballot paper. This would be done for each and every paper. If the correct values go into the system, then that is the job done.

    Yes I did misunderstand that part :)

    You could even have the voter do this check themselves. They fill in a voting slip and scan it, the screen displays what the machine thinks the vote is, voter either presses a button to agree and electronically cast the vote, then places the paper slip into a ballot box - or else disagrees and scans it again or asks for the polling clerk to assist.

    But you still have the problem that essentially the votes are going into a black box with no actual assurance that they're counted correctly unless a full manual count is also done.

    I don't think the marginal advantage of having fractional surplus transfers is worth the effort and cost involved. As for speed, a correct result which is trustworthy and can be seen at every step to be trustworthy is a lot more important than a fast result.

    Well, all paper based systems suffer from, for example, possible ballot stuffing - fill the ballot box up with your preferences prior to the first vote being counted - a favourite of many dictators across the globe.

    Electronic voting makes that trivial, you no longer need hundreds or thousands of loyal conspirators who can be relied upon to keep their mouths shut, just a small team or in theory one person.
    Then there is voter suppression - a favourite of Republican States in the USA.

    Nothing to do with the system of vote casting or vote counting though.
    Another trick is to prevent the opponents even standing.

    As above.

    Scrap the cap!



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,761 ✭✭✭✭Winters


    Should we drop Proportional Representation

    No, just no.

    It would also be very difficult to reverse the decision id say looking at how difficult it is revise electoral systems worldwide, to change FPTP in the UK in 2011 and the likes of the Electoral college change in the US.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,872 ✭✭✭View


    Idiotic? I don't think you understand the issues surrounding electronic voting at all.

    OCR had major problems when they tried it in Scotland, but the real problems with electronic voting begin AFTER votes are input.

    You can't trust the result without manual counting of ballots. It's a transparent, foolproof process which is extremely difficult to subvert.

    You haven't answered why we'd want to do this, either.

    On the contrary, I do. So also do the very many countries worldwide that use electronic counting (or voting).

    There is absolutely no reason why we could not have a voter fill out a ballot paper the old fashioned way and have them deposit it in an urn as before.

    The ballots once removed from the urns could be stamped with a unique ID and then scanned by OCRs at the count centre with tellers confirming (with a Yes/No) that each scan matches the ballot paper. The physical ballots could then be set aside in bundles much like now.

    The election result can then be produced from the OCR data relatively quickly with each step broken down and displayed as a separate “count”, much as now - and with the unique ID of the ballots available to show how each of them was transferred and counted during each of the counts.

    At the end of that sped-up process, should the pedants absolutely insist on it, they can do a re-count of the bundles of ballot papers later - using the unique IDs of each ballot - to confirm that the result produced in the breakdown of the count was accurate.

    Alternatively, and perhaps simpler, we could just switch from our version of PR to another variant of PR as used successfully in many other democracies.


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,862 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    Yes I did misunderstand that part :)

    You could even have the voter do this check themselves. They fill in a voting slip and scan it, the screen displays what the machine thinks the vote is, voter either presses a button to agree and electronically cast the vote, then places the paper slip into a ballot box - or else disagrees and scans it again or asks for the polling clerk to assist.

    But you still have the problem that essentially the votes are going into a black box with no actual assurance that they're counted correctly unless a full manual count is also done.

    I don't think the marginal advantage of having fractional surplus transfers is worth the effort and cost involved. As for speed, a correct result which is trustworthy and can be seen at every step to be trustworthy is a lot more important than a fast result.




    Electronic voting makes that trivial, you no longer need hundreds or thousands of loyal conspirators who can be relied upon to keep their mouths shut, just a small team or in theory one person.



    Nothing to do with the system of vote casting or vote counting though.



    As above.

    I agree with all your points, however:

    Having the voter verify their vote as cast is exactly as shown on the screen. Now we know the vote is entered correctly. That is good.

    Next, in my original post, I suggested that the Irish Universities political depts would provide and maintain the sftware in return for access to annonimised raw data. If that was so, any hanky panky with the result woud be discovered very quickly. Now we know the result is correct.

    All that is left is to make sure the blood sport element and drama is preserved.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,651 ✭✭✭wench


    Having the voter verify their vote as cast is exactly as shown on the screen. Now we know the vote is entered correctly. That is good.
    Do we though?

    The user can't be sure what they see is what will be written back to the database.


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,862 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    wench wrote: »
    Do we though?

    The user can't be sure what they see is what will be written back to the database.

    Well we cannot be sure that the bundle of votes for A does not end up in B's pile.

    It all comes down to errors that can be detected and corrected or just ignored.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,651 ✭✭✭wench


    Well we cannot be sure that the bundle of votes for A does not end up in B's pile.

    It all comes down to errors that can be detected and corrected or just ignored.
    With the amount of people standing looking it seems unlikely to go unnoticed.
    Plus a recount will solve it.


    If the database is compromised, finding out would be much harder.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,294 ✭✭✭✭VinLieger


    Well we cannot be sure that the bundle of votes for A does not end up in B's pile.

    It all comes down to errors that can be detected and corrected or just ignored.


    As mentioned above it would likely be spotted due to all the people watching the count and overseeing it.


    Also if its just one or two piles that it happens to and they are missed it likely will not affect the results that much.


    If the entire database is compromised via machine interfereance then thats the ballgame.


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 92,471 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    There are two forms of eVoting.

    Type A , voter can't verify vote. Only the software knows what's really going on.

    Type B , voter can verify vote and so could sell it.


    Pencil and paper and 18 candidates and those hole punch things means ballot stuffing is physically difficult. Tallymen and officials would likely spot similar handwriting if it was too common.

    X's make it much easier to stuff ballots. It's another reason to avioid FPTP.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,805 ✭✭✭PommieBast


    View wrote: »
    The ballots once removed from the urns could be stamped with a unique ID and then scanned by OCRs at the count centre with tellers confirming (with a Yes/No) that each scan matches the ballot paper. The physical ballots could then be set aside in bundles much like now.
    Ballots already have pre-printed serial numbers. At polling stations the staff note down which ballot papers have been issued and which are unused/damaged.



    To have confidence in the system, a different teller should be able to pick up a random ballot and cross-check it with a copy of the database. The raw data is only going to be about 10-20MB for a typical Irish constituency so it could be burned to CDs and party representatives can run it through their own laptops to check calculations.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,426 ✭✭✭maestroamado


    There are two forms of eVoting.

    Type A , voter can't verify vote. Only the software knows what's really going on.

    Type B , voter can verify vote and so could sell it.


    Pencil and paper and 18 candidates and those hole punch things means ballot stuffing is physically difficult. Tallymen and officials would likely spot similar handwriting if it was too common.

    X's make it much easier to stuff ballots. It's another reason to avioid FPTP.


    I thought with FPTP we just select our candidate with X or whatever...


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,031 ✭✭✭✭murphaph


    The fact the count is manual builds tension. It provides a level of drama that would be absent if a computer did the whole thing in a split second.

    You can make a solid argument that this drama draws people in to politics in a way that would not happen otherwise.

    Of course you can make a counter argument that the smartphone generation would be more engaged by an app so they could vote from anywhere, anytime.

    I think we should stick with what we have though.


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,862 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    murphaph wrote: »
    The fact the count is manual builds tension. It provides a level of drama that would be absent if a computer did the whole thing in a split second.

    You can make a solid argument that this drama draws people in to politics in a way that would not happen otherwise.

    Of course you can make a counter argument that the smartphone generation would be more engaged by an app so they could vote from anywhere, anytime.

    I think we should stick with what we have though.

    It is when the drama gets as exciting as paint drying that there needs to be a change. The Euro elections have too many candidates and too many votes to count.

    The drama can be preserved by announcing the count as each stage, or count, progresses.

    However, we should stick as we are.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,294 ✭✭✭✭VinLieger


    murphaph wrote: »
    Of course you can make a counter argument that the smartphone generation would be more engaged by an app so they could vote from anywhere, anytime.

    Ignoring the security concerns i dont believe this would actually add engagement, making voting easier might be a positive however it doesnt mean people will engage fully in the election. The likelihood is many would vote and then not pay any more attention or also a minority would simple tick boxes in such an app without really caring who they were voting for.

    Paper ballots and polling stations do add an increased effort to voting especially for younger generations who prefer everything available at their fingertips, but the added bonus may be that only those who actually care are active in the process. This argument does of course cut both ways as makes it also more difficult to draw people who dont care into the process so it is a double edged sword.


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,862 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    VinLieger wrote: »
    Ignoring the security concerns i dont believe this would actually add engagement, making voting easier might be a positive however it doesnt mean people will engage fully in the election. The likelihood is many would vote and then not pay any more attention or also a minority would simple tick boxes in such an app without really caring who they were voting for.

    Remember the on-line poll that gave the name 'Boaty McBoatface' to a serious attempt to name an environmental explorer ship?


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,872 ✭✭✭View


    It is when the drama gets as exciting as paint drying that there needs to be a change. The Euro elections have too many candidates and too many votes to count.

    The drama can be preserved by announcing the count as each stage, or count, progresses.

    However, we should stick as we are.

    There is absolutely no (legal or political) reason why we can’t hold the European elections here using an alternative form of PR.

    Given that the European Parliament largely operates on a party political/ideological bloc basis, it would make far more sense for voters here to cast their votes on a party list basis (so that the EU level political affiliation of each party was transparent), and that this was done on a nationwide single constituency basis.

    The system chosen could be either a closed (pre-determined by the party) or open (one where voters can order (or re-order) the candidates of the party, that they have chosen to vote for, as they see fit) party list basis.

    PR-STV is particularly unsuitable for the European elections since it obscures the party/ideological position of the candidates and reduces the election to a battle of personalities - an issue that is completely pointless since the multilingual operating basis of the European Parliament largely renders an MEP’s personality moot.


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,862 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    View wrote: »
    There is absolutely no (legal or political) reason why we can’t hold the European elections here using an alternative form of PR.

    Given that the European Parliament largely operates on a party political/ideological bloc basis, it would make far more sense for voters here to cast their votes on a party list basis (so that the EU level political affiliation of each party was transparent), and that this was done on a nationwide single constituency basis.

    The system chosen could be either a closed (pre-determined by the party) or open (one where voters can order (or re-order) the candidates of the party, that they have chosen to vote for, as they see fit) party list basis.

    PR-STV is particularly unsuitable for the European elections since it obscures the party/ideological position of the candidates and reduces the election to a battle of personalities - an issue that is completely pointless since the multilingual operating basis of the European Parliament largely renders an MEP’s personality moot.

    The Uk used a party list system for their Euro votes and look where that got them.

    The FPTP system gives power to a party as the party selects the candidates. The list system would give the party control over who sits in the European Parliament.

    I don't think so. Some countries use a combination of individual votes and party votes - but I am not sure how it works in practice.

    .


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,294 ✭✭✭✭VinLieger


    I thought with FPTP we just select our candidate with X or whatever...

    Yes exactly which is another reason that its inferior and more open to ballot stuffing as was quite plainly stated.....


  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 92,471 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    View wrote: »
    There is absolutely no (legal or political) reason why we can’t hold the European elections here using an alternative form of PR.

    Given that the European Parliament largely operates on a party political/ideological bloc basis, it would make far more sense for voters here to cast their votes on a party list basis (so that the EU level political affiliation of each party was transparent), and that this was done on a nationwide single constituency basis.
    European party list is dead easy, just get the Irish parties to agree amongst themselves who the candidates should be.

    SF, Inds. 4 Change and Solidarity–PBP are in the European United Left–Nordic Green Left group but there's not a lot of love lost between them.
    And Ming is in the group too.

    Labour are with the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats.

    The Social Democrats and Workers party don't subscribe to any group

    It's the Peoples Popular Front of Judea.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 3,872 ✭✭✭View


    The Uk used a party list system for their Euro votes and look where that got them.

    Every other country in the EU also use party list PR systems in the European elections. They do so without problems, so that isn’t a good argument against party list PR.
    The FPTP system gives power to a party as the party selects the candidates. The list system would give the party control over who sits in the European Parliament.

    Irrespective of whatever voting system is used, including under PR-STV, parties control whoever appears under their party banner on the ballot, so they control the “menu” of people who can be elected to sit in a parliament.

    Also, if you re-read my post, I mentioned BOTH closed AND open party lists. The latter, as I said before, allows voters to order (or re-order) the party’s candidate list - ie vote 1, 2, 3 etc for the candidates from the party that the voter has decided to vote for. We are perfectly free to opt for an open party list system, rather than a closed party list system.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,678 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    View wrote: »
    Every other country in the EU also use party list PR systems in the European elections. They do so without problems, so that isn’t a good argument against party list PR.



    Irrespective of whatever voting system is used, including under PR-STV, parties control whoever appears under their party banner on the ballot, so they control the “menu” of people who can be elected to sit in a parliament.

    Also, if you re-read my post, I mentioned BOTH closed AND open party lists. The latter, as I said before, allows voters to order (or re-order) the party’s candidate list - ie vote 1, 2, 3 etc for the candidates from the party that the voter has decided to vote for. We are perfectly free to opt for an open party list system, rather than a closed party list system.
    The difference between an open list system and PR-STV is that the open list system requires you to plump for a particular party and then allows you only to express preferences as between the candidates of that party. You couldn't,for example, decide to prefer all the candidates who share your view on a particular issue that matters to you ahead of all the candidates that don't, which is something that PR allows you to do.

    My view, basically, is that of all the electoral systems I have looked at PR-STV maximises the degree of control it gives to the voter; all the others take control away from the voter, to a greater or lesser extent, and give it to the party. FPTP is at the other end of the scale, maximising the degree of control given to parties and minimising that given to voters.

    Democratic principles suggest, therefore, that we should default to PR-STV, unless a compelling case is made for reducing the degree of control allowed to voters in some particular respect.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 491 ✭✭YellowBucket


    There’s really no argument in favour of getting rid of PR STV from what I can see.

    You’re unlikely to see it adopted by countries that have established FPTP or PR-List systems because parties are very unlikely to want to cede that level of control to the electorate.

    If you think of where Irish PR STV originated, it was basically chosen to avoid majoritarian monopoly on power due to the ethnic and political divide between green and orange before the state ever formed & it was envisaged to have been used in non partitioned Ireland.

    FPTP could have caused serious issues.

    It also is established for over a century at this stage. It’s more bedded in than most.

    The issues that need to be addressed here are more about the functioning of the Dail and I would reiterate that the issue is we’ve a very good, proportional representation system bolted to a parliament that was designed for FPTP as it’s basically the Westminster model, with relatively few modifications.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,426 ✭✭✭maestroamado


    VinLieger wrote: »
    Yes exactly which is another reason that its inferior and more open to ballot stuffing as was quite plainly stated.....




    What's ballot stuffing?
    I assume you mean stuffing paper into boxes, i do not see the difference in which system as each person has one ballot paper.
    Maybe its something else...


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 69,538 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Fraud. Extra votes being inserted before or after voting happens.

    The serial numbers, stamps, records of papers provided etc make it basically impossible here.


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,862 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    What's ballot stuffing?
    I assume you mean stuffing paper into boxes, i do not see the difference in which system as each person has one ballot paper.
    Maybe its something else...

    In some countries, like despotic African ones, the ballot box arrives stuffed with ballots already in them. This is countered by using transparent boxes. The stuffing then happens later. It is to make a fraudulent ballot look legitimate but fools no-one.

    Another trick (used in the USA presidential elections) is to pre punch the ballot with one candidate. If the voter votes for that candidate, then no harm. However, if the voter goes the other way, an invalid code is generated and the vote is invalid. Now that would only work for a small number of votes other wise it is obvious, but that might be all it takes.

    Voting fraud goes on everywhere. Was not Charlie Haughey's election agent convicted of personation*.


    *Vote early, vote often.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,678 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    . . . Voting fraud goes on everywhere. Was not Charlie Haughey's election agent convicted of personation*.

    *Vote early, vote often.
    He was acquitted, and left the court without a stain on his character.


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,862 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    He was acquitted, and left the court without a stain on his character.

    That may have been true of his agent but not many would say that about CJH.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,678 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Not many would have said it about the agent either, if we're honest. He was ever afterwards known to one and all as Pat Pat O'Connor O'Connor, and as far as I can recall no FF candidate ever has the brass neck to nominate O'Connor O'Connor as an election agent again.


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,862 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    A judge sitting in a Kerry court said to the accused after he was acquitted by a local Kerry jury, 'You leave this court with no stain on your character other than having been acquitted by a Kerry jury'.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement