European Parliament Elections 2009

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poor Student

The European results in Northern Ireland are quite interesting. Allister's TUV polled quite strongly. If these votes translate into Westminister and Stormont elections then the Unionst vote is split roughly into three large blocks. If all three sides contend all constituencies then South Belfast will probably stay nationalist and SF may even nick one or two other constituencies on a highly split vote like Belfast North. In Stormont it could leave SF the biggest party. Who would be First Minister in that event? Could the parliament function without the TUV engaging in coalition? Or will they just fade away like the UKUP?

---

Martin McGuinness would be First Minister in the event of Sinn Féin being the largest party in the Assembly. I just don't see the TUV getting the same level of support in an Assembly or Westminster election, a lot of the vote had to do with Allister himself being an ex-MEP and having experience in Brussels. Plus all three sides definitely wouldn't contend constituencies in a first past the post election that could return a nationalist if the unionist vote split.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pete

For the European elections they did not start the count until Sunday as they are not allowed to release the 1st count results until 9pm Snday when all the polls across Europe close.

---

That itself is a joke, but is beside the point.

Once the results can be released, it should be over and done with in a matter of minutes. Instead, the final seats were only confirmed late last night, well after they were sorted out everywhere else. Most of those countries had a vote, and got a result out on the same day.

In France, with 15 times our population, accurate poll results are known within seconds of the vote closing. Ours is a drip, drip, drip process. If Libertas hadn't called for a recheck, another candidate would have been denied votes which were rightfully his. That shouldn't be allowed to happen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poor Student

Who would be First Minister in that event? Could the parliament function without the TUV engaging in coalition? Or will they just fade away like the UKUP?

---

Off-topic here but just something I've always wondered...if Sinn Fein got into government here, who would be Taoiseach?:confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poor Student

The European results in Northern Ireland are quite interesting. Allister's TUV polled quite strongly. If these votes translate into Westminister and Stormont elections then the Unionst vote is split roughly into three large blocks

---

In summary: unionists 49.0%, nationalists 42.2%, others (Green and Alliance) 8.8%. Almost all of TUV's votes seem to have come from DUP.

Quote:

---

If all three sides contend all constituencies then South Belfast will probably stay nationalist and SF may even nick one or two other constituencies on a highly split vote like Belfast North

---

TUV is unlikely to contest 18 constituencies, only those with a large unionist majority (led by Antrim North where Allister's support base is). Apart from not wanting to gift SF seats, the deposit is expensive!

Quote:

---

In Stormont it could leave SF the biggest party. Who would be First Minister in that event? Could the parliament function without the TUV engaging in coalition? Or will they just fade away like the UKUP?

---

The government couldn't function with the largest party unable to get the support of a large majority of the Assembly. So McGuinness's period of office wouldn't be long- I'd guess about five minutes :)

TUV had a no challenge deal with the UK Independence Party in this election; the Ulster Unionists are now more or less back as the local wing of the Conservatives. It's possible that unionism as a whole may develop as a broad lobby across different parties, often disagreeing on issues but able to co-operate if only to keep SF out of office in Belfast.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mypost

That itself is a joke, but is beside the point.

---

So what is the point then? The right people got elected, and they knew months before they take office. Seriously, does one day really matter?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mypost

Once the results can be released, it should be over and done with in a matter of minutes. Instead, the final seats were only confirmed late last night, well after they were sorted out everywhere else. Most of those countries had a vote, and got a result out on the same day.

---

Why? What real benefit would that be? We have a complex voting system - different countries have different systems. What's the rush? Does the count go on past your bed time on a school night?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mypost

In France, with 15 times our population, accurate poll results are known within seconds of the vote closing. Ours is a drip, drip, drip process. If Libertas hadn't called for a recheck, another candidate would have been denied votes which were rightfully his. That shouldn't be allowed to happen.

---

Surely it depends on electoral system and consituency size. And make up your mind - on the one hand you're criticising the speed of the result, the next you're praising someone who called a recheck for suprious, headline grabbing reasons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mypost

In France, with 15 times our population, accurate poll results are known within seconds of the vote closing.

---

Note the highlighted word. Are you seriously suggesting we reimplement electronic voting in Ireland? Don't you read the news?

I really enjoy the drama and spectacle of the various counts, but would can see no real reason not to move to electronic voting at some point.

The main motivation for this would be to introduce true proportionality in the allocation of transfers from surpluses and to increase accuracy of counts. Each voter should receive a printout of their ballot as they vote, which they could check and then place in the ballot box as a paper trail in case of challenges.

It's incredible to me that such a simple concept was ballsed up the first time around.

It's not a simple concept, and until an open and free evoting platform is available, that can be reviewed not just by security experts but also by you and me if we so choose, it's not a viable option. Even then it may not be a viable option, when you consider that software of that description (linux, apache, etc), although less likely to be exploited because of peer review, can be and is exploited. That's the nature of software, unfortunately.

Of course it's not just software, there's also hardware and human error to take into account, and security remains a tradeoff we have to balance. Current evoting system though, have no balance. They're insecure and a danger to society.

As are politicians, obviously.

adam

But that's were the paper trail comes in- you could even retain something like the current count system as a check after each election. It would be up to each voter to verify that their printed vote matches their entry on the machine and their intention obviously.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr A

I
The main motivation for this would be to introduce true proportionality in the allocation of transfers from surpluses and to increase accuracy of counts. .

---

I heard a debate on George hook about this only last week. The electronic system was still randomly distributing the surplus.

I don't see that a paper print out can be seen as a guarantee of accuracy & security.

If the voter is just going to put the paper print out into a box for recounts surely that is just half a step forward as recounts will be done manually. Also you will probably get people looking to examine the paper votes post election so they can find errors & undermine the system.

The previous failed system seem to rely on secrecy for its security which is never a good way to develop systems. See dahamstas post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ringo

I heard a debate on George hook about this only last week. The electronic system was still randomly distributing the surplus.

---

That's pretty stupid. Even with the manual system it would be possible to distribute the votes fairly by looking at all the next preferences, yet there seems to be no inclination to do so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pete

I don't see that a paper print out can be seen as a guarantee of accuracy & security.

If the voter is just going to put the paper print out into a box for recounts surely that is just half a step forward as recounts will be done manually. Also you will probably get people looking to examine the paper votes post election so they can find errors & undermine the system.

The previous failed system seem to rely on secrecy for its security which is never a good way to develop systems. See dahamstas post.

---

Not quite getting you here- the retention of the paper element would mean that essentially we're retaining the current system but also adding an electronic version on top that will give us fast and accurate results. The electronic version should be more accurate- but the paper version has the advantage of transparency.

It wouldn't be something high on my priority list- but the mistake made in the NW count is very alarming indeed and highlights that improvements need to be made.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr A

But that's were the paper trail comes in

---

Paper trails are great when you have a population that are neither lazy nor stupid. Fianna Fail are still in power, so I don't think Ireland counts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ringo

The electronic system was still randomly distributing the surplus.

---

It originally did proportionally allocate surpluses (even as far as the trials iirc). Cullen changed it when people demanded a paper trail. He put in the random selection of surpluses so that there couldn't be a paper trail back up, as you couldn't select the same random sample.

Personally, although I don't see anything wrong with our current system or how long it takes, i'm not against evoting as a concept. A system such as Mr A with a print out as a back up would've got support. And obviously proportional surpluses would enhance the current system. Manual voting obviously has it's flaws too, with missing votes and debatable votes. However, Dempsey, Cullen and Ahern made such a bags of it, it'll be at least a generation before it'll be considered again anyway. And after seeing some of the count on Sunday in Wicklow in person, never mind on TV, I can't say I'm disappointed!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pete

If the voter is just going to put the paper print out into a box for recounts surely that is just half a step forward as recounts will be done manually.

---

How else can you do recounts? The computer will just give you the same result everytime, regardless of whether it's correct or not.

Quote:

---

Also you will probably get people looking to examine the paper votes post election so they can find errors & undermine the system.

---

If there are errors, surely it's a good thing that they'd be highlighted. :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Schumi

If there are errors, surely it's a good thing that they'd be highlighted. :confused:

---

I was trying to say that because there is a paper back up candidates will look for more recounts (because they can) as maybe they will say they don't trust the system.

I think the candidates in the trial constituencies got a bit of a shock when the final results announced so soon. Because there were no intermediate counts they were unsure if they could trust the result.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sligoman

Off-topic here but just something I've always wondered...if Sinn Fein got into government here, who would be Taoiseach?:confused:

---

It would be Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin. He's Sinn Féin's leader in the Dáil.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by holidaysong

It would be Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin. He's Sinn Féin's leader in the Dáil.

---

Shudder.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by holidaysong

Martin McGuinness would be First Minister in the event of Sinn Féin being the largest party in the Assembly. I just don't see the TUV getting the same level of support in an Assembly or Westminster election, a lot of the vote had to do with Allister himself being an ex-MEP and having experience in Brussels. Plus all three sides definitely wouldn't contend constituencies in a first past the post election that could return a nationalist if the unionist vote split.

---

I don't think they'd poll as high as they did in the European elections but I think they'd make enough of an impact in Assembly elections to take a seat in places like East Belfast.

In Westminister Elections the prospect of losing a seat to nationalists in Unionist majority (or close to) areas doesn't stop the DUP and UUP going against each other in the likes of North and South Belfast. If Allister really wants to put it up to the DUP he may contest those.