E Voting machines to be scrapped

carlovian

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
5,272


This guy who is living the high life in Florida with his latest madame must be brought back here at once.
Is it just me or is Cullen staring bewildered at the car saying "don't ask me how it works, I used to have a driver"
 


LTLCHG

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 1, 2010
Messages
569
:roll:

The entire fecking thread is explaining why it's a stupid idea. Honestly, I really do wonder about this sort of arrogant cluelessness and OCD blind belligerency when it comes to Irish politics. Numpties without a clue, with no background in engineering, technology, logic, mathematics, finance, commerce or economics - high-handedly making crazy decisions with no basis in reality, against all the advice of every technology expert on the planet, then simply refusing to back down and charging on ahead years after the decision has proven to be a disaster.

Seriously, what's wrong with your head like?
Some people think that the version of the software cannot be verified. Are you telling me that it can be verified for a referendum, but not for a PR system?
 

LTLCHG

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 1, 2010
Messages
569
Can you explain why it cannot be implemented?
Can you explain;
1) Why it should be implemented, i.e. why we should be looking to change the current system?

Long term cost savings. Instant election results. Stop ballot stuffing.

2) How it can be implemented, i.e. how we balance the contradictory requirements for anonymity and traceability
I already gave my ideas on how that could be done.
 

LTLCHG

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 1, 2010
Messages
569
Can you explain why it cannot be implemented?
It can be a lot easier to adapt a fully functional system than pay for the development cycle. I remember NEDAP trying to flog a smartcard based conditional access system to TV channels in the 1990s but I can't remember any major channel using it. The system used here was woefully insecure and open to compromise.

Regards...jmcc
We would need the source to adapt an existing system.
 

RainyDay

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 14, 2003
Messages
2,548
Some people think that the version of the software cannot be verified. Are you telling me that it can be verified for a referendum, but not for a PR system?
There is no facility to confirm that the correct version of software is running on these machines for any election.
I already gave my ideas on how that could be done.
You have not given any answer as to WHY it should be done, beyond the 'it looks good' answer. Your answer as to HOW it should be done is flimsy at best, suggesting that have blind trust in what other countries have done.

If they are your best answers, you should pull out of the debate.
 

SideysGhost

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 30, 2009
Messages
17,364
Some people think that the version of the software cannot be verified. Are you telling me that it can be verified for a referendum, but not for a PR system?
The notion that PR_STV cannot be electronically modelled is SPN's notion and not one I agree with as I said a few pages back. But now you are dishonestly conflating that issue with the entirely separate one of how the electorate can be sure that the version of the software running on each and every machine, and on the central counting machines, is the official open-source freely viewable software that is supposed to be running on them (and note this is in an ideal open-source scenario, not the clusterf*ck BS that FF tried to pull). And the answer to that separate question is - they can't. Ever.

But more importantly, as both I and RainyDay have repeatedly tried to pound into your skull...

What is your justification for taking a cheap, reliable, well-understood, transparent, tamper-proof system and attempting to replace it with an extremely expensive and complex hardware and software based electronic solution with vastly reduced transparency, reliability, introducing multiple new potential points of failure and tampering, with hugely increased storage and maintenance costs?

Then what is your justification for trying something so hugely risky on something so fundamental to the legitimacy of the entire system of government as the bloody voting system?

I'm not interested in your mindless dishonest shilling games. This project fails at the first principles of engineering and you cannot provide a single good answer for those most basic and fundamental of questions, yet you want everyone to skip merrily past these fundamental flaws in purpose and proceed to the pointless theological angels-on-a-pin debates about how we can possibly add even more layers of complexity to make the whole abomination less bad.

It's not going to work.

Seriously like. What's wrong with your head?
 

LTLCHG

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 1, 2010
Messages
569
Can you explain why it cannot be implemented?
There is no facility to confirm that the correct version of software is running on these machines for any election.

You have not given any answer as to WHY it should be done, beyond the 'it looks good' answer. Your answer as to HOW it should be done is flimsy at best, suggesting that have blind trust in what other countries have done.

If they are your best answers, you should pull out of the debate.
As long as we always know who has access to a machine, and when we will know they are not tampered with. Should be the same for a urine sample, evidence or leaving cert English papers.

I didn't actually suggest that we "should" take what other countries have done, I suggested that we will.
 

FakeViking

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 26, 2006
Messages
8,932
The notion that PR_STV cannot be electronically modelled is SPN's notion and not one I agree with as I said a few pages back. But now you are dishonestly conflating that issue with the entirely separate one of how the electorate can be sure that the version of the software running on each and every machine, and on the central counting machines, is the official open-source freely viewable software that is supposed to be running on them (and note this is in an ideal open-source scenario, not the clusterf*ck BS that FF tried to pull). And the answer to that separate question is - they can't. Ever.

But more importantly, as both I and RainyDay have repeatedly tried to pound into your skull...

What is your justification for taking a cheap, reliable, well-understood, transparent, tamper-proof system and attempting to replace it with an extremely expensive and complex hardware and software based electronic solution with vastly reduced transparency, reliability, introducing multiple new potential points of failure and tampering, with hugely increased storage and maintenance costs?

Then what is your justification for trying something so hugely risky on something so fundamental to the legitimacy of the entire system of government as the bloody voting system?

I'm not interested in your mindless dishonest shilling games. This project fails at the first principles of engineering and you cannot provide a single good answer for those most basic and fundamental of questions, yet you want everyone to skip merrily past these fundamental flaws in purpose and proceed to the pointless theological angels-on-a-pin debates about how we can possibly add even more layers of complexity to make the whole abomination less bad.

It's not going to work.

Seriously like. What's wrong with your head?
Sidey,
Much as I fully agree with your post, and much as I detest the parasitical FF attempt to control democracy, I do see the validity of some form of eVoting, just not the antedeluvian sh1te imposed by Ahern, Cullen and Dempshey. Turnout in our elections is rarely higher than 65%, but the Revenue have a database on practically everyone, what I'd like to see is that you get a tax/benefit credit when you vote (regardless of who you vote for). That means we must move away from Ahern's ould peann luaidh.

We all carry phones, the vast majority are vaguely "smart", if a half-decent, opensource system with proper checks and balances can be implemented for a reasonable price, why not?
 

SideysGhost

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 30, 2009
Messages
17,364
I didn't actually suggest that we "should" take what other countries have done, I suggested that we will.
Just as soon as Northern Ireland or Malta develop their own e-voting machines so, seeing as they are the only other jurisdictions with a remotely comparable electoral system :lol:

Seriously like, is your entire obsession with trying to find a justification for this moronic idiocy "because it looks shiny"? You certainly haven't come up with any other good reason for being so insistent about it.....and Bob knows it's painfully clear you are no engineer yourself. What's your angle here then, I think we should be told.
 

SideysGhost

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 30, 2009
Messages
17,364
We all carry phones, the vast majority are vaguely "smart", if a half-decent, opensource system with proper checks and balances can be implemented for a reasonable price, why not?
Because at current levels of technology it is far too easy to tamper with the results. And that quite simply voids the entire purpose of democracy. It at a stroke removes sovereignty from the people, where it is supposed to be, and puts sovereignty in the hands of the Government-employed system maintainers. E-voting at this point in time reduces democracy to a total sham, a shiny X-Factor/WWF circus. Voting would become just a game and nobody would ever know if the results bore any relationship to reality whatsoever. It's a recipe for dictatorship.

Hardly anybody working in IT anywhere in the world thinks this is remotely sane. Well, apart from people working for e-voting machine manufacturers!
 

shiel

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2011
Messages
17,465
Because at current levels of technology it is far too easy to tamper with the results. And that quite simply voids the entire purpose of democracy. It at a stroke removes sovereignty from the people, where it is supposed to be, and puts sovereignty in the hands of the Government-employed system maintainers. E-voting at this point in time reduces democracy to a total sham, a shiny X-Factor/WWF circus. Voting would become just a game and nobody would ever know if the results bore any relationship to reality whatsoever. It's a recipe for dictatorship.

Hardly anybody working in IT anywhere in the world thinks this is remotely sane. Well, apart from people working for e-voting machine manufacturers!
Absolutely.

The commission on electronic voting said on page 243 of its report 'With no voter verified audit trail [paper printout] there is no independent way of resolving any doubt in an electronic voting result. ... This creates the potential for the legitimacy of the system to be undermined'.

That is civil servantese for saying the insiders can write the result of the election and none of the rest of us yobs will ever know as we have no way of checking.
 

flavirostris

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 21, 2007
Messages
24,570
Nothing to do with me either pleads Martin Cullen:

Martin Cullen, who now lives in the US, refused to comment and said he didn't want to "get into" a discussion.

Speaking to the Irish Independent at an art gallery that he co-owns in Naples, Florida, Mr Cullen said: "I had nothing to do with that. I don't want to get into that."

His refusal means that none of the three main players involved in buying the machines -- which have now been sold for scrap for just €70,000 -- will explain why they were purchased but never used.
a 55 million ( and counting ) blunder that no one was responsible for. Only in Ireland.

'I had nothing to do with it,' says former minister Martin Cullen - National News - Independent.ie
 

FakeViking

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 26, 2006
Messages
8,932

LTLCHG

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 1, 2010
Messages
569
Absolutely.

The commission on electronic voting said on page 243 of its report 'With no voter verified audit trail [paper printout] there is no independent way of resolving any doubt in an electronic voting result. ... This creates the potential for the legitimacy of the system to be undermined'.

That is civil servantese for saying the insiders can write the result of the election and none of the rest of us yobs will ever know as we have no way of checking.
There is no reason that each vote can not be browsable online, as it will not have a persons identity connected to it. Anyone should be able to download them and tally them using their own software if they like. I have never had the chance to go and do a recount myself under the manual system.

I guess if we don't care about money, thee is no reason to switch over to a software based system. If we do care about money and democracy, we should build out own system rather than getting a proprietary system we cannot verify.
 

shiel

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2011
Messages
17,465
There is no reason that each vote can not be browsable online, as it will not have a persons identity connected to it. Anyone should be able to download them and tally them using their own software if they like. I have never had the chance to go and do a recount myself under the manual system.

I guess if we don't care about money, thee is no reason to switch over to a software based system. If we do care about money and democracy, we should build out own system rather than getting a proprietary system we cannot verify.
If we care about money we should maintain our democracy free from being undermined by unverifiable e-voting.

In addition we should not think about spending another 50+ million setting up another fiasco.

The present system has served us well. Let us keep it.

The real scandal in this episode was the fact that the people in charge insisted on going ahead even though they knew it was in danger of being manipulated to the extent of undermining the credibility of the elections.

They only backed down at the very last minute. They are still accusing people who raised questions as scaremongers. What was said about 'naysayers' during public debates at the time was outrageous.
 

hammer

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 6, 2009
Messages
58,180
Amazing. Nobody in FF responsible for evoting fiasco. They continue to be a shower of cnuts even after they leave.
 

truepatriot

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 12, 2010
Messages
900
someone somewhere made an ass load of money out of these machines. should there not be an f.o.i. request placed to see who authorised this fiasco. but there again how many more scandals were there? p-pars, de-centralisation, thornton hall, hse, nama, ministers pensions, the list is endless and we put up with it. cullen, ahern ,dempsey, have stated nothing to do with me, so then they are private citizens and should give up their enormous pensions and perks. the country is in freefall and these guys have 3,000 euros a week for destroying the place. a new party, a new beginning please. is it too much to ask????
 

Plebian

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 20, 2011
Messages
9,254
Absolutely.

The commission on electronic voting said on page 243 of its report 'With no voter verified audit trail [paper printout] there is no independent way of resolving any doubt in an electronic voting result. ... This creates the potential for the legitimacy of the system to be undermined'.

That is civil servantese for saying the insiders can write the result of the election and none of the rest of us yobs will ever know as we have no way of checking.
"It's not the votes that count, it's who counts the votes." -- Joseph Stalin

I'd rather stick with the expense and entertainment of the current system than relying on the people in power to automatically do the right thing.
 


New Threads

Most Replies

Top