QuoteWho was that fat bloke standing behind Harney when she was interviewed?
Originally Posted by soccerc
Nah, Dr. Sinnott really know his stuff. He's back on RTE now.
Who was that fat bloke standing behind Harney when she was interviewed?
I thought I was seeing double.
We're not arrogant, we're just better.
Eh??
Why accept risk? Prove to me the machines, for example, weren't capable of being turned off and losing memory, or being hacked, for example. Those would be potentially huge, albeit unlikely, problems.
The obvious thing is for a piece of paper to print off as you make your vote and drop into a box underneath the machine. Then you have your paper back-up as well as electronic voting.
That said, I agree about the fun of the count. People today can get all worked up on using computers for no other reason than they're modern and quick, which isn't really a compelling reason for change.
- they can be much more accurate
- they are easier to understand and quicker to use
- they can centralise an unrulely register
- they can provide detailed information on demographics
- they can provide users with "cliffnotes" on policies when in the booth
- they are cheaper in the long run (when not in bloody storage)
- they are more secure and risk-free than hand counting
- the fun of the count is possible the saddest concept ever.
- they can be further integrated into distributed systems which will make voting easier, such as estonia allowing secure online voting
when you're making an atm transaction, is there any danger a power outage will cause you to lose money? no, there isnt, the software has taken this into account. is the idea of someone with an agenda breaking encryption, reading votes and somehow maliciously using the count figures (which are common knowledge at the moment in polling centres anyway) really that frightening, considering it would be nigh-on impossible to do or to do without detection? or have we been watching too much Heroes?
Your Chairperson,
Gavin
Membership Advisory Board
"Ex Bardus , Vicis"
I know electronic stuff is safe and all that - I'm not arguing that, although then again, look who we're dealing with here! The point is if someone does want to make a challenge, there has to be something tangible to fall back on instead of "The computer says so", which leaves the legal problems I mentioned. They're unlikely to happen, but that doesn't prove they didn't happen.
Easier to understand and quicker to use than pencil and paper? Don't see how that makes sense. Much more accurate? The current system is, I would say, fairly accurate. Talk of some lad in Tipp South asking for a recount when 59 votes behind and acknowledging that it's a fairly big gap.
Detailed information on demographics? In a confidential (not the word I'm looking for, but anyway) vote?
The count being "sad"? Good argument there.
Cheaper? Maybe, but I'd say the cost of hiring people for one day's counting is insignificant in the greater scheme of things.
"Cliffnotes on policies"? "Centralise an unrulely register?" Sounds like the stuff I'd expect to see on a Bullsh!t Bingo card, to be honest. Feel free to translate into English!
There was a guy on RTE explaining the electronic voting mess from the last time. He explained that the department had never tested the devices or the software. As someone who works in that area i can tell you nobody accepts delivery of a software system without passing their own tests.
As sure Cullen messed that up so why no give him a department with an even bigger budget. By this logic i suppose Health is next for him?
Cliffnotes: a short summary. you'd think a student would know that.
the register is in disarray, as expounded by many people on this very board. one centralised fully computerised register based on the same database as PPS or whatever will solve that. finding duplicates would be much, much quicker.
Your Chairperson,
Gavin
Membership Advisory Board
"Ex Bardus , Vicis"
Both of these points have nothing to do with electronic voting.
explain?
Your Chairperson,
Gavin
Membership Advisory Board
"Ex Bardus , Vicis"
Some Dutch punters raised their own concerns about electronic voting in the Netherlands. A computer is a computer - you can programme them to do nearly anything. Their relevant minister (I'm not going to look up his name, so let's call him "Märtin Cullen") told them that these weren't computers, they were machines. The Dutch punters hacked a voting machine to make it play chess. The Dutch still use the machines.
Neither of your points has anything to do with electronic voting. It doesn't get any clearer.
Plenty of the population took their time to come around to ATM's, a technology that might not be the best example given ghost transactions, skimming etc. The most important thing with an electoral system is that the electorate have faith in it. With the current, dust gathering, system they clearly do not and no amount of bs from Bertie about auld pencils is going to change that. So what is needed is a system that will enable a manual check that will give confidence to the people that their votes can be checked, and give us a fall back if it is ever hacked.
The fact that FF seem to be back pushing it hard would probably raise suspicions rather than remove them.
If you attack me with stupidity, I'll be forced to defend myself with sarcasm.
Really? I thought he was devastatingly handsome.
Check out my new sports blog http://www.action81.com
The government/department need to decide what their requirements for the system are. They then need to put out a tender for the contract. When they purchase a system they need to ensure it passes their own internal tests. This basis project management.
Most likely this will be outsourced to consultants given the b***s that the department made of it the first time.
The existing devices are not networked so likelihood of hacking is remote.
With any requirement they will to balance the need for votes to be anonymous & traceability of the results.
PPARS was made a ball of by consultants as was the pensions system. What makes you think they won't do likewise with this?
TO TELL THE TRUTH IS REVOLUTIONARY
The ONLY foot.ie user with a type of logic named after them!
All of this has happened before. All of it will happen again.
The main difference between the two is that ATMs are really useful for when banks are closed (which is most of the time) or when you can't get down to them, whereas we have a perfectly workable alternative to electronic voting and so don't really need to bring it in.
If the eVoting consultants get a contract where they are paid per hour with feck all requirements or oversight they will do the same as PPARS. I could add the integrated ticketing system to that list too.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks