Yes
No
we trust computers these days to do everything from running an incubator to flying a plane to keeping our bank balance correct ,so i dont really see the problem with letting it count our votes.luddites of the world look outOriginally posted by dahamsta
Spoiling is a side issue. The key issue is VVAT (Voter Verifiable Audit Trail).
Last edited by the 12 th man; 09/02/2004 at 12:09 PM.
Did you read my first post?
Spoiling your vote IS a right. As is not voting, even voting for the PDs is a right. Macy's point - which I agree with - is that not having a "none of the above" option actually puts people off showing up and voting - even if it's to vote for nobody. ie. it's anti-democratic.
The arrogance of the political classes in this country to say that spoiling your vote is wrong amazes me. Spoiling your vote is an effective way of saying a plague on all your houses. Surely a valid response in this day and age.
After another weekend of sleaze and yet more sleaze how can saying **** off to the political parties be a waste of a vote. Voting for the current government, or a dying FG or a limp wristed pathetic Labour or Green Party - now that's wasting your vote.
KOH
No One Likes Us, We Don't Care
i did,and while there is probably merit in what you say,i think that what we are talking about here ,is ultimately progress for the voting process.surely we cant expect the time consuming antiquated system that we have now, to continue for ever more.Originally posted by dahamsta
Did you read my first post?
while there is the possibility/probability of initial glitches in the system,i dont think you can stop ,what will be ultimatly be a more efficient way of doing the job.
The only response.Originally posted by WeAreRovers
The arrogance of the political classes in this country to say that spoiling your vote is wrong amazes me. Spoiling your vote is an effective way of saying a plague on all your houses. Surely a valid response in this day and age.
A general question, in relation to this thread. When the attitudes held by over 70% of a country's population make you want to smash things, is it time to emigrate?
Im not saying that people shouldnt spoil their votes but you cant just say you have a right to it. AFAIK there is no law saying you have a right to.Originally posted by WeAreRovers
Spoiling your vote IS a right. As is not voting, even voting for the PDs is a right. Macy's point - which I agree with - is that not having a "none of the above" option actually puts people off showing up and voting - even if it's to vote for nobody. ie. it's anti-democratic.
The arrogance of the political classes in this country to say that spoiling your vote is wrong amazes me. Spoiling your vote is an effective way of saying a plague on all your houses. Surely a valid response in this day and age.
After another weekend of sleaze and yet more sleaze how can saying **** off to the political parties be a waste of a vote. Voting for the current government, or a dying FG or a limp wristed pathetic Labour or Green Party - now that's wasting your vote.
KOH
Like I said the Government could defend not having a spoil vote button in a court IMO. The points you make about the parties (excluding FF) are grand but they wouldnt hold up in court.
As well if there was a spoil vote button it would increase the amount of spoilt votes. It would be much easier(and not as fun) to press a button rather than writting 'Dustin 4Taoiseach' on the ballot. How can it be good for democracy if large numbers of people dont vote, thus letting the minority of people in the country speak on their behalf.
electonic voting while it is the way forward, needs to be introduced correctly.
The Director of FF Elections being the head of this role out is laughable. If you saw this in a banana rebublic you'd be well suss. "we are one,some might say"
I agree with dahmasta with the integrity of the software needing to be fully tested. Most Companies while internaly testing their software before field release, do not capture all faults. Some faults may only be found after extensive field testing and other only during field use where the system is under stress conditions.
The most important thing for me is to have a voting paper trail. I for one would like to see that my votes have been processed in the correct order. It is important for voter visibility plus there is also the case that if a problem did occur with the system then there would be a paper back up for any verification needed.
I would suggest that there would be an increase in the numbers voting. As it is the vast majority of people who don't want to vote, simply don't bother. The political parties and commentators waffle on about voter apathy, without addressing the real issue. It's not apathy with politics, it's apathy for the political parties.Originally posted by SÓCcfc
As well if there was a spoil vote button it would increase the amount of spoilt votes. It would be much easier(and not as fun) to press a button rather than writting 'Dustin 4Taoiseach' on the ballot. How can it be good for democracy if large numbers of people dont vote, thus letting the minority of people in the country speak on their behalf.
A "None of the Above" option would give people the chance to properly register that they don't want to vote for any of the options - no political party is going to push (no pun intended) for that as it will show them all up.
To sum up and get back to the question rather than the rant, an option for spoiling your vote is no different from now, where you can spoil your vote and/or not bother turning up.
EDIT - Just to emphasise the point, turnout at the last general election was 63%. What of the other 37% Soc?
Last edited by Macy; 09/02/2004 at 1:06 PM.
If you attack me with stupidity, I'll be forced to defend myself with sarcasm.
The other 37% stayed at home, something which they DO have a right to do (until such time as compulsory voting is introduced, Belgium have it afaik).
But the government every election tries to get people out to vote, is that effecting the rights of those who vote? The government are showing a bias to those who vote because it is precieved to be in the best interest that people vote.
I think the amount who vote will increase because of the system. If there was a spoil vote button people who normally vote would end up spoiling their vote. What does that achieve except letting a minority of people speak for you.
As things stand at the moment arond 27% of the people of Ireland voted to have the present Government. That proportion would go down further IMO if there was a spoil vote button.
This arguement is bizarre - the numbers of spoilt papers would only go up if people chose to register their dissatification that way, which is democracy!!!!Originally posted by SÓCcfc
I think the amount who vote will increase because of the system. If there was a spoil vote button people who normally vote would end up spoiling their vote. What does that achieve except letting a minority of people speak for you.
As things stand at the moment arond 27% of the people of Ireland voted to have the present Government. That proportion would go down further IMO if there was a spoil vote button.
However, one of the main selling points of the system is that they will be less spoilt votes by people who simply make a mistake, rather than a statement.
There would simply be a tally of the "none of the above" votes, just as their is now. How can something that gives people a more of a choice be anti-democratic? It's certainly far preferable for people to register their feelings, than to say and do nothing...
If you attack me with stupidity, I'll be forced to defend myself with sarcasm.
Yea but isnt it better again if they go to the voting centre to vote for some who they feel best reflects their views thus enabling them to have repersentation rather that sit smugly in the pub and say; "I voted for Dustin, that'll teach Bertie"Originally posted by Macy
There would simply be a tally of the "none of the above" votes, just as their is now. How can something that gives people a more of a choice be anti-democratic? It's certainly far preferable for people to register their feelings, than to say and do nothing...
Let's stick to facts and the law here: Spoiling your vote is not a right. It's not in the constitution, it's not in the law. What people campaigning for a spoiling option want is the right to privacy when spoiling their vote, which is impossible with the current system (you have to call an attendant over).
Again, this is a side issue. The integrity of our democracy is a hell of a more important than an individual right to spoil.
adam
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Conor74
[B]Hmm, would question how effective it is. I mean it goes to a vote counter who probably hands it to the County Registrar, who asks the tally men to confirm that it's spoiled.
Still more effective than staying at home.
KOH
No One Likes Us, We Don't Care
But you're talking about joke candidates, not spoiling/ voting none of the above....Originally posted by SÓCcfc
Yea but isnt it better again if they go to the voting centre to vote for some who they feel best reflects their views thus enabling them to have repersentation rather that sit smugly in the pub and say; "I voted for Dustin, that'll teach Bertie"
Whether you want to believe it or not, there are people totally disenfranchised by all political parties, and they should have the choice. It could be that they strongly support the socialist party (for example), but they are not standing in their constituency.
People voting for parties "just because" does more damage than anything else to democracy IMO....
If you attack me with stupidity, I'll be forced to defend myself with sarcasm.
Not merit, truth. I posted four facts and one supposition. I have a lot more suppositions if anyone would care to hear them.Originally posted by the 12 th man
i did,and while there is probably merit in what you say
i think that what we are talking about here ,is ultimately progress for the voting process.surely we cant expect the time consuming antiquated system that we have now, to continue for ever more.
Certainly, the existing system is time consuming, but it also has integrity -- if something goes wrong, we have a paper record that can be recounted, and recounted again and again until everyone can agree that the result is ok. You don't have that with this new system, and what's more, you're paying about 90 million for the pleasure.
Yes, I said 90 million. Cullen said 45 million, right? He's a liar: The system itself costs 45 million, but storage of the machines will cost another 45 million or so over the projected lifetime of the machines. That's not the only thing he's lied about either, he's lied to the public and the Dáil chamber repeatedly. I'll say it again lest there be any doubt: Cullen is a liar.
while there is the possibility/probability of initial glitches in the system,i dont think you can stop ,what will be ultimatly be a more efficient way of doing the job.
With respect, f*ck efficiency. I'd prefer to spend several months counting votes I can trust than to risk my vote on a machine with no effective backup mechanism. Voter Verifiable Audit Trail. Look it up.
adam
But ya see Macy thats the whole point.Originally posted by Macy
But you're talking about joke candidates, not spoiling/ voting none of the above....
Whether you want to believe it or not, there are people totally disenfranchised by all political parties, and they should have the choice. It could be that they strongly support the socialist party (for example), but they are not standing in their constituency.
People voting for parties "just because" does more damage than anything else to democracy IMO....
If there is no socalist party rep going in your area why not go yourself and set up a local socalist party cumann, run candiates etc. Or at least vote for people who you feel represent you more than the the rest do, then lobby the particular TD/MEP etc. SF, Greens and some Lab are socialist too, just of varying degrees.
If you feel so strong about something you might as well do something to change the situation rather than waste your vote.
I've already stated that I will be voting - I used that as an example (maybe I shouldn't have, or at least used a particular party).Originally posted by SÓCcfc
But ya see Macy thats the whole point.
If there is no socalist party rep going in your area why not go yourself and set up a local socalist party cumann, run candiates etc. Or at least vote for people who you feel represent you more than the the rest do, then lobby the particular TD/MEP etc. SF, Greens and some Lab are socialist too, just of varying degrees.
If you feel so strong about something you might as well do something to change the situation rather than waste your vote.
I would contend that by spoiling your vote, it has the potential to make all the parties sit up and address the disenfranchised electorate - if, using the last election figures, 37% had spoiled their vote (as there is no "none of the above" option), then the political parties and the media would have to sit up and take notice, ultimately leading to change/pressure to change...
If you attack me with stupidity, I'll be forced to defend myself with sarcasm.
Do you really think that 37% of people who didn't vote in last election did so because they felt that no party represented them well enough? No, it's also because they couldn't have been arsed, felt it wouldn't have made a difference to the result, or felt that it's pointless voting because nothing will ever change.Originally posted by Macy
I would contend that by spoiling your vote, it has the potential to make all the parties sit up and address the disenfranchised electorate - if, using the last election figures, 37% had spoiled their vote (as there is no "none of the above" option), then the political parties and the media would have to sit up and take notice, ultimately leading to change/pressure to change...
If someone isn't happy with the candiadates standing in their constituency, they, IMO, have a social obligation to stand for election themselves. That's the point of a democratic society. People spoiling their votes could hardly be described as democratic. IMO, voting should be compulsory. There would be electronic voting, with no 'None of the above' option. As for Martin Cullen being in charge of bringing in the new system, I trust him to do it properly. (and I'm most certainly not a FF man) I don't believe he would be that corrupt as to do anything underhand with the system. As for computer error, there's a greater chance of human error in the counting, so that's a none-issue. As, I think, this whole topic should be. People complain about there not being a paper trial so they can be sure of their vote. Answer me this, the last time you voted, how do you know your vote was properly counted and added to the final total? You don't. You just have to trust that whoever counted it did so correctly and fairly. You trust that this is what happened. Why can't you trust the new system in the same way?
1) Yeah quite alot, ever think why?Originally posted by brendy_eire
Do you really think that 37% of people who didn't vote in last election did so because they felt that no party represented them well enough? No, it's also because they couldn't have been arsed, felt it wouldn't have made a difference to the result, or felt that it's pointless voting because nothing will ever change.
2) Same as above
3) Definitely, and no way of registering that feeling
And what if I wanted to stand and couldn't get the support? For example in the local elections you need 15 people from the area to nominate you. Spoiling you ballot is one way of registering your dissatisfaction, so it is entirely democratic...Originally posted by brendy_eire
If someone isn't happy with the candiadates standing in their constituency, they, IMO, have a social obligation to stand for election themselves. That's the point of a democratic society. People spoiling their votes could hardly be described as democratic.
What about the democratic right not to vote? And if you are to have compulsory voting, IMO a "None of the above" would be essential.Originally posted by brendy_eire
IMO, voting should be compulsory. There would be electronic voting, with no 'None of the above' option.
Having the Director of Elections implementing a new voting system, and you don't see a potential conflict? This is also the man that wants to abolish donation limits, and increase the limits for declared donations. I don't necessarily think he would be that corrupt, but there shouldn't be any question marks around the implementation.Originally posted by brendy_eire
As for Martin Cullen being in charge of bringing in the new system, I trust him to do it properly. (and I'm most certainly not a FF man) I don't believe he would be that corrupt as to do anything underhand with the system.
The old system is trustworthy because each vote can be gone over, and re-counts called if necessary. Basically repeating whats been said before, but every stage is checked and verified. As for computer error - take it you don't use computer systems, and Access in particular, that often?Originally posted by brendy_eire
As for computer error, there's a greater chance of human error in the counting, so that's a none-issue. As, I think, this whole topic should be. People complain about there not being a paper trial so they can be sure of their vote. Answer me this, the last time you voted, how do you know your vote was properly counted and added to the final total? You don't. You just have to trust that whoever counted it did so correctly and fairly. You trust that this is what happened. Why can't you trust the new system in the same way?
btw As a matter of interest, do you have a vote here or in the North? If it's the North you're happy to argue the case for us to have this system, whilst you happily use the tried and trusted pen and paper...
If you attack me with stupidity, I'll be forced to defend myself with sarcasm.
Its a private position he holds as director of elections for FF. Nothing to do with his portfolio as a Minister, about as relevant as him being the captain of the local golf club.Originally posted by Macy
Having the Director of Elections implementing a new voting system, and you don't see a potential conflict? This is also the man that wants to abolish donation limits, and increase the limits for declared donations. I don't necessarily think he would be that corrupt, but there shouldn't be any question marks around the implementation.
Posting Permissions
Quote
Bookmarks