# Voting in the General Election



## jim (4 Feb 2016)

Does anyone know why, in this day and age, it is not possible to vote in the election online?

I live in Dublin but will have to drive 4 hours to get home to vote. I don't understand why it cannot be done electronically online. If we can have internet banking etc then why not voting?

I think it would also make the whole process including vote counting more efficient and less costly as it would be automated.

Thanks.


----------



## Páid (4 Feb 2016)

Unfortunately I won't be in Ireland (normal residence) on polling day. I cannot vote in advance or from abroad but I will be affected by the next Government for the next five years.


----------



## gipimann (4 Feb 2016)

jim, if you live in Dublin, why are you on the electoral register in another part of the country?   Can you register to vote at your Dublin address in time for the upcoming election?


----------



## Ceist Beag (4 Feb 2016)

I think we should hire Bertie as a consultant to look into the matter ... he should have plenty of expertise of the potential pitfalls with electronic voting!


----------



## moneybox (4 Feb 2016)

jim said:


> I think it would also make the whole process including vote counting more efficient and less costly as it would be automated.
> 
> Thanks.




I have been living away for the past five years however, my name is still on the electoral register at home.  There must be thousands of others in my situation.  Technically emigrants are not allowed to vote though this is not what happened on the gay referendum when Irish people abroad came home in their droves to vote.    If online voting became available how would they stop Irish people abroad who are still on the voting register in Ireland from voting?


----------



## noproblem (4 Feb 2016)

You're correct about the gay vote and the amount of people who voted illegally, yet almost 40% didn't vote at all. In the not too distant past I remember people being quietly deleted from the register if it didn't sit right with certain political people in the community, I wonder does that still happen?


----------



## dereko1969 (4 Feb 2016)

I think you'll find it was the equality referendum not the "gay" referendum.

If you've been living in Dublin all that time then register here, it's actually anti-democratic pretending to live somewhere that you don't and creates all sorts of distortions in constituencies.

And voting remotely, on-line will never happen, the chances of chicanery are way too big.


----------



## Purple (4 Feb 2016)

moneybox said:


> I have been living away for the past five years however, my name is still on the electoral register at home.  There must be thousands of others in my situation.  Technically emigrants are not allowed to vote though this is not what happened on the gay referendum when Irish people abroad came home in their droves to vote.    If online voting became available how would they stop Irish people abroad who are still on the voting register in Ireland from voting?


If you don't pay your taxes here I don't see why you should be allowed to vote here. We should actively stop Irish citizens who don't live here from voting.


----------



## moneybox (4 Feb 2016)

Purple said:


> If you don't pay your taxes here I don't see why you should be allowed to vote here. We should actively stop Irish citizens who don't live here from voting.



Purple I am not questioning my right to vote in Ireland, it does not bother me in the slightest.  My point was how can it be fair and transparent if online voting ever comes to fruition?


----------



## Ceist Beag (4 Feb 2016)

Like others, I don't see online voting happening and tbh I have no desire to see it happen. I quite like the suspense with the current system as well as the fact that people should be motivated enough to get out and vote. Jim as others have said, why are you not registered in Dublin? If you still see yourself as being from down the country and have more interest in what is happening there then a 4 hour trip once every 5 years to vote should not really be a cause for complaint. At least this time the election is on a Friday so there really isn't an excuse for anyone in the country to vote if they really are interested in doing so.


----------



## Leper (4 Feb 2016)

Purple said:


> If you don't pay your taxes here I don't see why you should be allowed to vote here. We should actively stop Irish citizens who don't live here from voting.



I think Irish people who have emigrated from Ireland to live abroad should be the first to vote through the postal service.  We have residents here who do not pay tax either and they can vote. So, why not for our emigrants?


----------



## Marion (4 Feb 2016)

For years, I used to have 2 votes. One where I live and one for my parents' home. 

I never abused the system. I only voted once - wherever I happened to be on voting night.

Marion


----------



## moneybox (4 Feb 2016)

Leper said:


> I think Irish people who have emigrated from Ireland to live abroad should be the first to vote through the postal service.  We have residents here who do not pay tax either and they can vote. So, why not for our emigrants?



Very well said.  Ireland indeed is very much out of step with its voting rights for emigrants. As it's mostly younger people who emigrate I am sure the various political parties might not be too enthusiastic to support this move as younger people are the ones much more likely to vote for change.


----------



## Mrs Vimes (4 Feb 2016)

Páid said:


> Unfortunately I won't be in Ireland (normal residence) on polling day. I cannot vote in advance or from abroad but I will be affected by the next Government for the next five years.



I believe you have until tomorrow to register for a postal vote which you would be entitled to if you are abroad due to your occupation. The vote is cast in a convenient garda station a number of days before ballot day.

I used one many years ago when I was briefly working in a menial job in Dublin and just needed my employer to certify that I would not be given a day off to travel.


----------



## odyssey06 (4 Feb 2016)

Leper said:


> I think Irish people who have emigrated from Ireland to live abroad should be the first to vote through the postal service.  We have residents here who do not pay tax either and they can vote. So, why not for our emigrants?



The residents who vote here will be subject to the laws made by the politicians they voted for, emigrants will not - which is why they should not be able to vote in general elections.


----------



## jim (4 Feb 2016)

I should change my vote to dublin.
I will be driving home to vote though and i dont mind that really

The only point/question i am making/asking is: why not have electronic voting?

I would suggest that its possibly cheaper to administer than the  current manual system and probably more secure and reliable as there is no human manual intervention. It could be audited im sure in a number of ways to give assurance as to its reliability etc.

It would be a lot more convenient for everyone if they could just log in (perhaps with pps number or something) to vote rather than physically going somewhere.

So why is this not a in place?

Im not debating the aspect of immigrants/emmigrants etc voting. I just would like to hear peoples views as to why we cannot vote electronically? We bank and buy stuff and do all sorts of important transactions online. To me voting online seems obvious and simple and would open up the possibility for our people living abroad to vote (if that was deemed aplropriate) .

Why is this not a reality?

I dont accept the arguement that it would be costly to implement. Yes sure it would cost a bob or 2 to put in place but so what?


----------



## jdwex (4 Feb 2016)

jim said:


> I should change my vote to dublin.
> I will be driving home to vote though and i dont mind that really
> 
> The only point/question i am making/asking is: why not have electronic voting?



Just get your skates on and apply to be put on the supplementary register for the constituency where you actually live! What's so difficult about that?
Electronic voting is another issue.


----------



## jim (5 Feb 2016)

jdwex dont worry about my voting constituency. The question im asking is re e voting.


----------



## moneybox (5 Feb 2016)

odyssey06 said:


> The residents who vote here will be subject to the laws made by the politicians they voted for, emigrants will not - which is why they should not be able to vote in general elections.



As per my link above 123 other countries have provisions in place for their citizens who live abroad to  vote so what's so special about Ireland that they can't do the same?

Hundreds of thousands of us were forced to emigrate throughout our most recent recession, we didn't all go as Noonan put it for 'lifestyle' reasons. We will be returning to resume the lives we left behind as the economy contiues to improve, its not that we gone forever. So why should we be denied to vote on things that matter or that will impact us on our return?

Sorry OP I am straying off topic from your question, electronic voting was a  costly fiasco for Ireland, google it and you will see it will be many many years before the topic will ever resurface again.


----------



## jim (5 Feb 2016)

I feel like im banging my head off the wall here.

I havent yet heard any reasonable logical arguement for why we dont have e voting!

It seems to make sense to me on every level to have it.

I dont accept that we shouldnt have it based on some fek up yrs ago re those silly voting machine! How costly was that fiasco? How much does the current system cost? How much would a simple website where one logs in amd votes cost? I suspect none of us can accurately answer these questions except we can speculate  etc.

I maintain it would be cheaper and more efficient and more convenient more secure and reliable to have online.


----------



## odyssey06 (5 Feb 2016)

The logic of evoting good is not what I would dispute... it's our experience of systems like these that makes us dubious...
It would be cheaper and more efficient if we had a civil service who could be trusted to deliver a proper online voting system. Look at Eircode. I have zero confidence another attempt at evoting would be a success.


----------



## Ceist Beag (5 Feb 2016)

Jim if we learned anything from the e-voting fiasco it is that it is not as simple and straightforward as you imply. There is no good reason why we should be the among the leaders in adopting electronic voting. Let others lead the way and once it has been proven to be a suitable medium, then we can adopt it. We have wasted enough money on this already with e-voting to risk trying to be a trailblazer on it again. From a quick Google it appears that no country in the world has adopted it fully yet apart from Estonia (source Wikipedia). Australia have been cautiously introducing it since 2001 but have still not fully adopted it - why not if it is so easy? Others have discussed it at length but have not adopted it (mainly for security concerns it appears).


----------



## Steven Barrett (5 Feb 2016)

jim said:


> I should change my vote to dublin.
> I will be driving home to vote though and i dont mind that really
> 
> The only point/question i am making/asking is: why not have electronic voting?
> ...



Jim 

It would be too wide open to fraud. To vote, you have to present yourself at a polling station (in almost all cases) with identification. All of that would go if it was done online. Voting passwords and pin numbers would be stolen too easily. 

As for cost, it would cost a fortune. When it's the State footing the bill, the cost automatically increases. The electronic voting system cost €54m. The introduction of the Leap Card in Dublin cost €55m and took TWELVE years to put in place (the privately run LUAS had their own travel card system up and running in a couple of years and I imagine at a fraction of the cost). 

Going on past history, you are looking at tens of millions of euro, lots of debate and lots of time. Lots of people would get rich off it before it failed, there'd be a shrug of the shoulders from the minister in charge and we'd all move on without anyone being held accountable.  


Steven
www.bluewaterfp.ie


----------



## jim (5 Feb 2016)

Hi Steven,

Appreciate your thoughts on it and I hear what you are saying! I just think its a cynical mind-set but you may be right in a lot of what you are saying.

1. Re fraud - surely the current manual system is open to fraud in terms of counting votes. They have safeguards in place but when something is automated it is a lot less subject to fraud. It could be audited also in a number of ways to give appropriate assurance. If we can bank etc online then I am sure a system could easily be designed in such a way as to prevent fraud. There may be some residual risk but this could be controlled to some extent through auditing. In most organisations processes are moving from manual to automated for lots of good reasons. So to should the voting system. To argue that fraud would prevail is a weak argument. The system if designed properly should protect against this.

2. You say it would cost a fortune. I don't know and you don't know how much it would cost. again its speculation. of course it would cost a chunk of money but why cant this be explored and costed and tendered for to a private company. If done right it might not cost a fortune. If its determined that it would cost a fortune and would bring no benefits then stay as we are but shouldn't it at least be explored instead of shot down?

3. Don't get your last paragraph. Its nonsense and again simplistic speculation. I would like to think there would be some form of debate as part of deciding whether or not to proceed with e-voting. I would like to hear all of the arguments for and against and then make a decision, whether or not to at least explore the idea, based on the evidence.


----------



## T McGibney (5 Feb 2016)

jim said:


> 1. Re fraud - surely the current manual system is open to fraud in terms of counting votes.



How, exactly? All counting is done in public and is tallied by observers. Recount results rarely deviate from original counts by more than a few dozen votes out of tens of thousands.

An online system would allow me to cast votes for everyone in my house. It's a major problem with the postal vote system in Britain.


----------



## Setanta12 (5 Feb 2016)

moneybox said:


> As per my link above 123 other countries have provisions in place for their citizens who live abroad to  vote so what's so special about Ireland that they can't do the same?
> 
> Hundreds of thousands of us were forced to emigrate throughout our most recent recession



100s of '000s would greatly skew the results nationally - that's your answer.


----------



## jim (5 Feb 2016)

Iv never been involved in the counting process so I don't know exactly how it works. as I mentioned above they probably do have safeguards to prevent fraud. but given that it is a manual process it is inherently more risky than an automated process. Collusion between two individuals could result in fraud. its probably unlikely that it would happen but if it did it would have sever consequences potentially and therefore is a significant risk. Don't ask me how exactly 2 individuals would collude...but suffice to say its counting of votes by humans with oversight in place...that to me equates to a risk of collusion....and don't ask me what the motivation etc would be for collusion...

an online system designed properly would not allow you to cast a vote for anyone other than yourself. im not going to get into how it could be designed but I don't think its rocket science given that we already, as iv mentioned a few times, do a lot of sensitive tasks online. one pps number equals one vote, for example....to prevent me from using other peoples pps numbers to vote however I liked there could be surety questions attached to the log in, for example.

In any case fraud is just one aspect and I still think its arguable that an automated system designed properly would be less prone to fraud than a manual system. There are a bunch of other reasons why I think an online system would be better. Wouldn't it be more transparent also and the results a lot more auditable...and auditable in real time given that its automated? Yes there may be some built in margin for error but the result would be quickly established, fully auditable, very reliable etc.

regarding allowing our folks living abroad to vote - this is another debate different to my OP...


----------



## Setanta12 (5 Feb 2016)

Being an ex Tallyman and Tallymaster, I like the current system. It engenders an interest in the system, rather than the cold clinical formatting of results.


----------



## jim (5 Feb 2016)

Setanta you may be right but how on earth is that any sort of a argument for not having e-voting given all of the advantages it could have? by that logic you are saying stuff the _possible_ advantages such as cost, reliability, conveneience, flexibility, transparency, auditability etc.....its more fun doing it the manual way!

I completely accept Ceist Beags comment above though and with that in mind maybe we should stick with the current process. Just wanted to get peoples thoughts.


----------



## Gerry Canning (5 Feb 2016)

jim,s question was on e-voting .

I would strongly oppose e-voting.
I am of the opinion that there is something personal in taking the (bother) to go and physically vote and gives a feeling of giving your input.

Electronically? I would be worried that it could easily descend into a last minute (Big Brother) type hit the button vote or gets caught on what issue hits the election @the last minute, rather than a more rounded vote..


----------



## odyssey06 (5 Feb 2016)

I think it would be more convenient if you could vote at any polling station in your constituency though. They would need a backoffice online system to keep track of what votes have been used across the constituency though, and maybe the option should only be available if you have your polling card and you should expect to be challenged for identification.


----------



## tallpaul (5 Feb 2016)

jim said:


> Iv never been involved in the counting process so I don't know exactly how it works. as I mentioned above they probably do have safeguards to prevent fraud. but given that it is a manual process it is inherently more risky than an automated process. Collusion between two individuals could result in fraud. its probably unlikely that it would happen but if it did it would have sever consequences potentially and therefore is a significant risk. Don't ask me how exactly 2 individuals would collude...but suffice to say its counting of votes by humans with oversight in place...that to me equates to a risk of collusion....and don't ask me what the motivation etc would be for collusion...



I'm afraid this is just speculative rubbish. You say yourself that you have no idea how a count is done and then go on to put out pure trash as a scenario. 

For information, all boxes are opened in the presence of a returning officer and a horde of tallymen representing the candidates. All votes are counted as a total and are then counted in bundles of 100 for each candidate. These bundles are checked, rechecked and weighed to ensure that they are correct. Bundles are then individually tracked as they move through and around the count process. While errors can and do occur, there is ZERO chance of electoral fraud taking place.

Such safeguards are simply not available with an electronic system. If you going to advocate an electronic system, don't use fraud as a risk in doing so.


----------



## jim (5 Feb 2016)

Tallpaul I don't know how you can say there is zero chance of fraud. given the process you just described it sounds inefficient and certainly prone to fraud. an automated counting system would be efficient and I don't see how fraud would more likely if it was designed properly. I take your point that fraud would be unlikely.


----------



## Gerry Canning (5 Feb 2016)

Jim,

Having been around counts , there is a very very small chance for fraud.
There is absolutely no doubt that an electronic system would be more efficient.
I just can,t see electronic systems getting to that level of certainty.
As an example ,apparently even encoded systems can be hacked by (law) agencies and given the speed in which electronics are moving , i might be able to do it myself shortly !


----------



## Leo (5 Feb 2016)

How would you secure an online voting system from fraud? When cyber espionage services are available so cheaply, it would be very easy to arrange massive manipulation of the results. 

In terms of security, how do you propose each individual in a household is confirmed 100% to be who they say, and how do you confirm with 100% certainty that no one else is observing or influencing their vote? And given successive government's abject failures in implementing IT systems, what makes us think they could ever get this right?


----------



## Firefly (5 Feb 2016)

Re e-voting, could we not just let the operators of the Lotto run it? Since it seems to never make a difference who gets elected anyway, why not just pick them out randomly & save us all the bother?


----------



## jim (5 Feb 2016)

Leo said:


> How would you secure an online voting system from fraud? When cyber espionage services are available so cheaply, it would be very easy to arrange massive manipulation of the results.
> 
> "In terms of security, how do you propose each individual in a household is confirmed 100% to be who they say, and how do you confirm with 100% certainty that no one else is observing or influencing their vote? And given successive government's abject failures in implementing IT systems, what makes us think they could ever get this right?





Leo said:


> "
> 
> 
> 
> And given successive government's abject failures in implementing IT systems, what makes us think they could ever get this right?



This is a shockingly poor and pessimistic argument. If done right it would work but it would have to be done right. you cant argue against e-voting on the basis that the government might mess it up!!(although admittedly they probably would).

"How would I secure an online system from fraud" - im not sure but an IT/Cyber expert would know. As a layman I go back to the numerous examples of individuals already using the internet to make sensitive and fraud-prone transactions. also by having a secure log-in your half ways there. In the same way with internet banking or with the revenue or with any payment platform one must "prove" who they are. Security questions could be used as a basic form of verification but there are more sophisticated ways of doing it.


"how do you confirm with 100% certainty that no one else is observing or influencing their vote?"
Sure anyone can influence or observe anyone's votes as things stand....

I suppose by posting this I just wanted to get a sense of what peoples thoughts were on it because to me it seemed like a no-brained. but having heard a few views it is apparent that this would be tricky to implement and could pose difficulties not least the general reluctance that there seems to be out there to bring it in.


----------



## Purple (5 Feb 2016)

moneybox said:


> As per my link above 123 other countries have provisions in place for their citizens who live abroad to vote so what's so special about Ireland that they can't do the same?


 Americans can vote if they live abroad but they also have to make a US tax return, no matter where they live.


----------



## T McGibney (5 Feb 2016)

Purple said:


> Americans can vote if they live abroad but they also have to make a US tax return, no matter where they live.


If we bring in tax returns for emigrants, the clamour for emigrant voting would fall away like snow off a rope.


----------



## G7979 (5 Feb 2016)

I think the main issue I would have with an online voting mechanism would be how to protect the Secret Ballot Act. Jim the suggestions you have made and the comparison to online banking etc all work on the premise of identifying a person before allowing them to vote, how does a system then "forget" the person to allow the vote into an anonymous pool for results? I am sure the technology exists to show only what we want it to but a determined person could find the digital trail is they really wanted to.

Added to that, the potential for attacks, etc, the need for independent verification, reasonable internet connection, etc. If someone is away for whatever reason a postal vote is readily available and is not difficult to obtain.

I have worked as a Presiding Officer and count staff. The system while manual and cumbersome does protect people. All the ballot papers have a serial number on them which is duplicated on the counterfoil, these are checked by the count staff, each ballot paper is stamped or perforated on the day of the poll, the stamp used is known to very few people before the day. These are both measures to prevent stuffing the ballot box. Anything with the wrong stamp would be discarded as a spoiled vote. For a poll result to be affected a significant number of ballots would have to be interfered with and this would also be noticed, the papers when checked would show they were invalid rather quickly. All work in a count centre is done under the watchful eye of official count staff, Returning officer and his team, tallymen, reporters, candidates and other interested parties, the opportunity to interfere with the count is slim.

Call me cynical but I think if the government, or more likely the advertisers who would pay good money for access to the voting preferences of a particular group of people had enough money the integrity of the ballot would be very much in doubt. Far greater risks in my opinion than the paper and pen model we currently use. Each and every ballot is verifiable back to the polling station/presiding officer it was issued to and each table that is set up has a tally of how many votes it issued. And in the event of a close result there is the opportunity to recount and re-examine each vote, which is not available with e-voting.


----------



## dereko1969 (5 Feb 2016)

Before we even think about e-voting we need to get the register fit for purpose, when the OP hasn't even bothered to register where he actually lives shows the uphill struggle required to get the register in shape.


----------



## Leo (5 Feb 2016)

jim said:


> This is a shockingly poor and pessimistic argument. If done right it would work but it would have to be done right. you cant argue against e-voting on the basis that the government might mess it up!!(although admittedly they probably would).



I really, really wish it was't so. I have very low expectations when any government body goes to implement a complex IT system, yet they still disappoint me every time. Let them prove me wrong on something that won't cost in the hundreds of millions, or more. 



jim said:


> "How would I secure an online system from fraud" - im not sure but an IT/Cyber expert would know.



I do work in IT security. You probably don't want to know how most of the biggest companies in IT security have been breached over the years. Even the very hardware used as the backbones of the internet have been compromised. So even the experts are not safe. At the most basic level, something like a denial of service attack that took Boards.ie and a number of linked sites down there a couple of weeks back can be arranged for less than €50 dollars an hour. A full breach of a system will cost more, but it's becoming a commodity service if you know where to look. 



jim said:


> As a layman I go back to the numerous examples of individuals already using the internet to make sensitive and fraud-prone transactions. also by having a secure log-in your half ways there. In the same way with internet banking or with the revenue or with any payment platform one must "prove" who they are. Security questions could be used as a basic form of verification but there are more sophisticated ways of doing it.



Even with all the security features of Chip & PIN cards, they suffered $1B in fraudulent transactions in the SEPA area alone in 2013. Those systems currently tolerate a certain level of fraudulent transactions, most are only picked up when the account holder notices a strange transaction or missing money some time later upon reviewing their statement. The investigation and resolution of those fraud claims can take weeks or even months. How do you factor that into an electoral system where there are no statements issued to confirm your choices, or weeks or months available to validate and adjust for such fraud? Is there a tolerable level of fraud in an electoral system?



jim said:


> "how do you confirm with 100% certainty that no one else is observing or influencing their vote?"
> Sure anyone can influence or observe anyone's votes as things stand....



People can influence, but in the poling stations, an overbearing father can't stand over his children in the booth as they vote.


----------



## jim (5 Feb 2016)

dereko1969 said:


> Before we even think about e-voting we need to get the register fit for purpose, when the OP hasn't even bothered to register where he actually lives shows the uphill struggle required to get the register in shape.


.
Dereko chill the beans - lets stick to the question here....e-vote or no e-vote.

Leo,

I take on board your main point above - you are convinced that fraud would happen and would be unstoppable. I was hoping a system could be designed to minimise the likelihood of this but perhaps thats not the case.


----------



## dereko1969 (5 Feb 2016)

I'm perfectly chilled, I'm pointing out the massive problems we have with the electoral register as it is with people not living where they're voting. You can't introduce e-voting without a reliable electoral register. The only way I see of doing that reliably is by using PPSN which would have all sorts of civil liberty issues and is, I think, a non-starter.
You can't just talk about e-voting in isolation.


----------



## Leo (5 Feb 2016)

jim said:


> I take on board your main point above - you are convinced that fraud would happen and would be unstoppable. I was hoping a system could be designed to minimise the likelihood of this but perhaps thats not the case.



Yeah, it's all about what the acceptable level of fraud is, and what it costs to build and maintain a system to those standards. The fraudsters evolve daily, keeping up with them is a very expensive business.


----------



## Leper (6 Feb 2016)

G7979 said:


> I have worked as a Presiding Officer and count staff. The system while manual and cumbersome does protect people. All the ballot papers have a serial number on them which is duplicated on the counterfoil, these are checked by the count staff, each ballot paper is stamped or perforated on the day of the poll, the stamp used is known to very few people before the day. These are both measures to prevent stuffing the ballot box. Anything with the wrong stamp would be discarded as a spoiled vote. For a poll result to be affected a significant number of ballots would have to be interfered with and this would also be noticed, the papers when checked would show they were invalid rather quickly. All work in a count centre is done under the watchful eye of official count staff, Returning officer and his team, tallymen, reporters, candidates and other interested parties, the opportunity to interfere with the count is slim.
> 
> Call me cynical but I think if the government, or more likely the advertisers who would pay good money for access to the voting preferences of a particular group of people had enough money the integrity of the ballot would be very much in doubt. Far greater risks in my opinion than the paper and pen model we currently use. Each and every ballot is verifiable back to the polling station/presiding officer it was issued to and each table that is set up has a tally of how many votes it issued. And in the event of a close result there is the opportunity to recount and re-examine each vote, which is not available with e-voting.



Excellent Post.

1. What do you mean by "stuffing the ballot box"?
2. Is verbal contact allowed between Count Centre Staff and Tallymen?
3. Do the candidates eventually know all information from each box counted?


----------



## losttheplot (6 Feb 2016)

e-Voting at polling stations may be feasible if done correctly but I'd use it only to facilitate automated counting, similar to how lotto slips are processed, this would improve efficiency in counting. But even these have problems (remember the controversy in Florida over ballot papers and the hanging chaffs).

I don't think voting on-line could ever work. Dead people can't show up at polling stations but they could show up on line for a long time. The system would probably crash when the polls were about to close.

As for emigrants voting, maybe in Presidential elections and maybe some senators. You could have an extra constituency for the diaspora where the TDs only have input on issues relevant to the diaspora.

We may just be as well off with a quickpick option, nothing ever seems to change anyway.


----------



## Purple (8 Feb 2016)

losttheplot said:


> e-Voting at polling stations may be feasible if done correctly but I'd use it only to facilitate automated counting, similar to how lotto slips are processed, this would improve efficiency in counting. But even these have problems (remember the controversy in Florida over ballot papers and the hanging chaffs).
> 
> I don't think voting on-line could ever work. Dead people can't show up at polling stations but they could show up on line for a long time. The system would probably crash when the polls were about to close.
> 
> ...


I don't think our Senate and democracy should be raised in the same breath.  
People who don't live in Ireland and don't pay taxes here should have zero input into how our government is elected.


----------



## Firefly (8 Feb 2016)

Purple said:


> I don't think our Senate and democracy should be raised in the same breath.
> People who don't live in Ireland and don't pay taxes here should have zero input into how our government is elected.



I agree ... "No representation without taxation"


----------



## jim (8 Feb 2016)

I agree Firefly. But does that mean that everyone living and working here, regardless of how long they've been here, should be allowed to vote here? Tbh im not sure if they already can or not. For example a young individual from, say Poland, that has been living and working here for 1 year - are they allowed to vote?


----------



## G7979 (8 Feb 2016)

*Who can vote in elections and referenda?*
You must be at least 18 years of age on 15 February, the day the Register comes into force. You must also have been ordinarily resident in the State on 1 September in the year before the Register comes into force.

While you may be entitled to register as a voter due to your residency, there may be a limit on the types of elections in which you can vote. The registration authority will need to know your citizenship because this will determine the elections at which you may vote.

The right to vote is as follows:


Irish citizens may vote at every election and referendum;
British citizens may vote at Dáil elections, European elections and local elections;
Other European Union (EU) citizens may vote at European and local elections*
Non-EU citizens may vote at local elections only.
*If you are an EU citizen, other than an Irish or British citizen, and you were not registered to vote in previous European elections in Ireland, you must also complete a declaration, [broken link removed], to guard against double voting in the election. The local council will register you to vote in your local constituency and send the information in your declaration to your home EU Member State. You can also get the form from your local authority.

You must be registered at one address only and you must live at that address on 1 September before the register comes into force. If you live away from the address at which you are registered, (for example, if you are a student living away from home), you will need to contact the registration authority and give them your new address.

If you leave your address but you plan to return there within 18 months, you can continue to be registered there, as long you do not register at any other address.

*Overseas voters*
If you are an Irish citizen living abroad you cannot be entered on the register of electors. This means that you cannot vote in an election or referendum here in Ireland. (The only exception to this is in the case of Irish officials on duty abroad (and their spouses) who may register on the postal voters list).


----------



## G7979 (8 Feb 2016)

Leper to answer some of your questions let me give you a simple version of the Polling Process

When I arrive at the polling station on the 26th February there will be a ballet box, ballot papers, stamping instrument, various bits of stationary and a copy of the register. There will be a ballot account paper which will be pre-filled out with the number of ballots assigned to me.

It is my responsibility to check that I have everything I should have and report to the election office if I dont. I must open and verify the ballot box is in working order, verify with my poll clerk that it is empty before sealing it again. The key and lock are fixed to the ballot box with tamper proof seals.

Polling begins, people come in give their ID, polling card etc, They are verified against the register to confirm they are eligible to vote, a ballot paper is issued and they are asked to put it in the correct ballot box when they are ready.

At the end of the day I must complete the ballot account, this shows, the amount I was issued, the number of people who voted (ie that I gave ballot papers to) and a number of other things such as the number of spoiled votes  etc. 

This is put into an envelope and sealed, and is collected along with the ballot box (also now fully sealed at the end of the poll). This is given to authorised personnel from the election office who call to all polling stations and bring the boxes and ballot account papers (along with all other stationary etc) to the count centre for the morning. These are guarded through the night.

So the among many questions I get are 
1 - Why am I not on the register, 
2 - What's to stop you from filling in a full book and putting it in the box

Register is pre-determined long before it gets to me, I have no say or influence over it and on the day I am powerless to change it. 

Whats to stop me from filling in a whole book - also know as stuffing the ballot box - well because I have to account for every single one.  And believe me someone would notice if I started filling them in and popping them in the box on the day. Also - whose name would I put it against? And why would I risk prosecution for such an offence? 


Count Day 
Each box in turn is opened and the number of ballots inside counted. 
The count staff work in pairs.
For the first round you are only opening the ballots and counting them into bundles of 100 (and checked and re-checked and weighed for certainty) 
This number is then checked against the ballot account submitted by the Presiding Officer. 
Each ballot box/account must balance within a reasonable margin for error. 

This is balanced against each centre, so if there are 10 tables in the school or hall you visit that 10 must balance. 

The reason for this is a voter may have put their ballot in a box other than the one at my table, they may have slipped it into their pocket and left with it (rare but it happens) or I may have made a mistake (extremely rare this one never happens ;-) )  

Then and only then do we begin to sort them into first preference etc.

At this point if there is a discrepancy, a significant number of ballots missing/extra or whatever, a full investigation into the ballot boxes will happen, the register will be examined to see how many names were ticked off, how many bundles are used, and if necessary each ballot paper to determine the serial numbers and their origin.

Tallymen, media, candidates and representatives, and members of the general public are present on the far side of a barrier and the Tallymen will check each one as it is opened to get an indication of early results. 

They are not permitted to reach over the barrier or touch in any way a ballot paper, they are not permitted to distract or interrupt the process at this point. 

There is some interaction or banter between workers and the folks on the other side of the barrier, but generally not while counting/sorting is happening, its too fast paced and each are concentrating on their own task in hand. 

At a later point when sorting begins and in particular when we are sorting second and third preference shares etc they will attempt to interact more, ask for votes to be adjudicated on etc if there is any ambiguity about a persons vote, this is where we would call a supervisor if they are impeding our work.

Re your third question, a candidate can submit a request to the Dept of the Environment for a full breakdown of the count process, there is a fee and would not be available for a number of weeks. 
Once we have a total number of ballots in each box they are mixed with others from other centres, (All Fingal randomly mixed together, all Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown mixed, but Fingal and Dun Laoghaire will not be mixed, each district is counted and collated independent of the others) before sorting begins to determine a result.


----------



## G7979 (8 Feb 2016)

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/e...renda/voting/proportional_representation.html

More information on the Counting Process on the link above


----------



## Jim2007 (8 Feb 2016)

moneybox said:


> Technically emigrants are not allowed to vote though this is not what happened on the gay referendum when Irish people abroad came home in their droves to vote.



Well actually, they be entitled to vote, depending on how long the have been away....


----------



## Jim2007 (8 Feb 2016)

moneybox said:


> So why should we be denied to vote on things that matter or that will impact us on our return?



And why should the people that are actually live in the country have you dictate how they live their lives on the off chance you might return?  Those living abroad would have too much of an influence over domestic affairs for this to be a runner.


----------



## Jim2007 (8 Feb 2016)

jim said:


> I would suggest that its possibly cheaper to administer than the  current manual system and probably more secure and reliable as there is no human manual intervention. It could be audited im sure in a number of ways to give assurance as to its reliability etc.



So far I'm not aware of any European trails that have proved that.... This is the most recent Swiss decision.

The biggest issue is going to be confidence in the system.  And the reality is that most people have had enough experiences of system failure to make them very distrustful of e-voting.


----------



## RainyDay (8 Feb 2016)

jim said:


> I should change my vote to dublin.
> I will be driving home to vote though and i dont mind that really
> 
> The only point/question i am making/asking is: why not have electronic voting?
> ...



For a start, let's move away from the "Why not e-voting" - let's ask "why evoting"? Why would we want to risk a huge investment in an IT service for unquantifiable benefits. What actual benefit would arise? If the main benefit is 'allow Jim to keep his vote in the family home and vote from Dublin', well, that's not a great start.




jim said:


> Hi Steven,
> 
> Appreciate your thoughts on it and I hear what you are saying! I just think its a cynical mind-set but you may be right in a lot of what you are saying.
> 
> ...



With due respect, if you know little or nothing about the existing system, you need to do some research before comment. The cliched comparison to online banking doesn't stand up. For a start, banks lose millions in online banking failures and breaches all over the world. None of these systems are *************************. They tend to keep it fairly quiet, but anyone who works in IT security will tell that there is no such thing as a secure banking system.

However, the main issue is the requirement for anonymity - the secret ballot. This directly conflicts with the requirement for audits and verification of the count. It is 100% essential that the vote cannot be traced back to the voter - this would breach our secret ballot, and enable vote selling and duress voting. This is the main difference with online banking, where is 100% essential that the transaction CAN be traced back to the account holder.




jim said:


> Iv never been involved in the counting process so I don't know exactly how it works. as I mentioned above they probably do have safeguards to prevent fraud. but given that it is a manual process it is inherently more risky than an automated process. Collusion between two individuals could result in fraud. its probably unlikely that it would happen but if it did it would have sever consequences potentially and therefore is a significant risk. Don't ask me how exactly 2 individuals would collude...but suffice to say its counting of votes by humans with oversight in place...that to me equates to a risk of collusion....and don't ask me what the motivation etc would be for collusion...
> 
> an online system designed properly would not allow you to cast a vote for anyone other than yourself. im not going to get into how it could be designed but I don't think its rocket science given that we already, as iv mentioned a few times, do a lot of sensitive tasks online. one pps number equals one vote, for example....to prevent me from using other peoples pps numbers to vote however I liked there could be surety questions attached to the log in, for example.
> 
> ...



Really Jim - go do a bit of reading up on the topic first. There is no opportunity for 'collusion between two individuals to result in fraud' in the Irish voting system.  Online voting would also open up opportunities for vote selling, as it eliminates the protection of the polling booth. Similarly, it opens up opportunities for duress voting by family members or unscrupulous employers. It would be a backward step, for no particular benefit.

So, let's go back to the start and ask - why eVoting?


----------



## Purple (8 Feb 2016)

RainyDay said:


> Really Jim - go do a bit of reading up on the topic first. There is no opportunity for 'collusion between two individuals to result in fraud' in the Irish voting system.  Online voting would also open up opportunities for vote selling, as it eliminates the protection of the polling booth. Similarly, it opens up opportunities for duress voting by family members* or unscrupulous employers*. It would be a backward step, for no particular benefit.


You were making a good point up until there but really; *unscrupulous employers*? What century are you living in?


----------



## G7979 (8 Feb 2016)

Jim - you have until close of business tomorrow to notify your local council and transfer your vote to Dublin, this will see you listed on the supplementary register - no need to travel if you don't want to!

http://www.independent.ie/irish-new...ister-for-general-election-2016-34433196.html


----------



## jim (8 Feb 2016)

I dont mind travelling to vote but i will change to dublin at some point. Not looking at all to debate this aspect of it. Was just looking to debate the merits of e voting which i think has been achieved.

Thanks.


----------



## Branz (8 Feb 2016)

Louis said:


> The hassle and cost the last time with electronic voting means that they won't touch it again for a long time.



the issue was simply that the dutch guy who wrote the code would not make it available for audit purposes, hence leaving the door open for for massive electoral fraud with e-voting.


----------



## Purple (10 Feb 2016)

Branz said:


> the issue was simply that the dutch guy who wrote the code would not make it available for audit purposes, hence leaving the door open for for massive electoral fraud with e-voting.


Thats one of the questions which should have been asked day one. It should have been in the tender specification. Some civil servant was in charge of that and cost the state millions. We'll never know their name.


----------



## Leper (10 Feb 2016)

Purple said:


> Thats one of the questions which should have been asked day one. It should have been in the tender specification. Some civil servant was in charge of that and cost the state millions. We'll never know their name.


We don't know if it was a civil servant who was in charge of the voting machine debacle.  Obviously, somebody is responsible and should be brought to account.  The subsequent storing of the voting machines was a disgrace also.  You'll probably see that a vested interest party bod was responsible for the whole debacle and has long been absolved of any blame.


----------



## Purple (11 Feb 2016)

Leper said:


> We don't know if it was a civil servant who was in charge of the voting machine debacle.  Obviously, somebody is responsible and should be brought to account.  The subsequent storing of the voting machines was a disgrace also.  You'll probably see that a vested interest party bod was responsible for the whole debacle and has long been absolved of any blame.


Fair point. Someone was in charge though, at a implementation level. Someone wrote a spec. I very much doubt that was the minister but that was where the whole thing went astray.


----------



## thedaddyman (12 Feb 2016)

Purple said:


> Fair point. Someone was in charge though, at a implementation level. Someone wrote a spec. I very much doubt that was the minister but that was where the whole thing went astray.



The Dept of Environment were in charge of this and the civil servants in there were responsible for the incompetent implementation of a Govt policy. Ultimately the Minister at the time should take responsibility, after all, Ministers are fast enough to take responsibility for anything a Govt Dept or quango does right so they should take responsibility for fiasco's as well. I can dream .......

It still annoys me though that a pencil and paper was deemed to be more secure and provide a better audit trail. Take the Listowal recount at the moment, can anyone truthfully say that not one single ballot paper has been interfered with in the 14 months since the local election. ? Of course they can't (and BTW, I'm not suggesting anything has happened).


----------



## PaddyBloggit (12 Feb 2016)

thedaddyman said:


> Take the Listowal recount at the moment, can anyone truthfully say that not one single ballot paper has been interfered with in the 14 months since the local election. ? Of course they can't (and BTW, I'm not suggesting anything has happened).



The only difference in 14 months is 2 votes.


----------



## thedaddyman (15 Feb 2016)

PaddyBloggit said:


> The only difference in 14 months is 2 votes.



Not quite correct, the order in which 2 of the candidates were elected changed and all of this after a number of votes which were deemed valid were actually ruled out by the courts. It had no impact on this occasion on the final result but it could have. Imagine in the general election and a hung Dail, the decision on what grouping has a majority or not and ultimately who goes into government could be decided by human error


----------



## PaddyBloggit (15 Feb 2016)

Despite that, I think the whole episode proves that the system is fairly robust.


----------



## RainyDay (21 Feb 2016)

Branz said:


> the issue was simply that the dutch guy who wrote the code would not make it available for audit purposes, hence leaving the door open for for massive electoral fraud with e-voting.



That was one of many, many issues. Even if he had published his source, how can you verify that the published source is the version running on the machines? And how do you verify the source code for the MS Access database on which the count system was based? And the source code for the Windows machines on which the count system ran? How does any individual have confidence that their choice of vote is what was actually recorded in the database?



Leper said:


> We don't know if it was a civil servant who was in charge of the voting machine debacle.  Obviously, somebody is responsible and should be brought to account.  The subsequent storing of the voting machines was a disgrace also.  You'll probably see that a vested interest party bod was responsible for the whole debacle and has long been absolved of any blame.





thedaddyman said:


> The Dept of Environment were in charge of this and the civil servants in there were responsible for the incompetent implementation of a Govt policy. Ultimately the Minister at the time should take responsibility, after all, Ministers are fast enough to take responsibility for anything a Govt Dept or quango does right so they should take responsibility for fiasco's as well. I can dream .......
> 
> It still annoys me though that a pencil and paper was deemed to be more secure and provide a better audit trail. Take the Listowal recount at the moment, can anyone truthfully say that not one single ballot paper has been interfered with in the 14 months since the local election. ? Of course they can't (and BTW, I'm not suggesting anything has happened).



WHich Minister do you want to hold responsible? Noel Dempsey who was there when the project started out, with no clear business case and no cost benefit? Or Martin Cullen, who pushed it through to implementation and spent €4m on PR with FF's former general secretary? Or Dick Roche, who managed the warehousing project which threw good money after bad?

If you read Pat Leahy's book on the Bertie years, it suggests that Cullen was a bit horrified to find that the relevant officials had pushed ahead with the €50m contract for the bulk of the machines, just as their many flaws was coming into the public domain, but he continued to defend the system all the way to the scrap yard.


----------



## thedaddyman (22 Feb 2016)

RainyDay said:


> WHich Minister do you want to hold responsible? Noel Dempsey who was there when the project started out, with no clear business case and no cost benefit? Or Martin Cullen, who pushed it through to implementation and spent €4m on PR with FF's former general secretary? Or Dick Roche, who managed the warehousing project which threw good money after bad?



why not hold all 3 plus their bosses responsible?


----------



## Purple (22 Feb 2016)

RainyDay said:


> That was one of many, many issues. Even if he had published his source, how can you verify that the published source is the version running on the machines? And how do you verify the source code for the MS Access database on which the count system was based? And the source code for the Windows machines on which the count system ran? How does any individual have confidence that their choice of vote is what was actually recorded in the database?


Believe it or not Software is validated every day of the week. It's a major headache for Quality Managers and keeps many businesses using paper based quality records but it is done regularly and successfully. Major drug and medical device companies control their entire manufacturing and distribution processes using integrated software systems such as SAP. But I'm sure you know all that. 
On the specifics here the only thing that needed to be validated was the specific code for the application, and how it integrated with commercially available software not the specific code in the Windows platform it was run on.


----------



## Purple (22 Feb 2016)

I watched the latter part of the debate on RTE last night from the Facebook HQ. Varadkar and the woman with the short blond hair came across very well, as did the FF guy. Mary Lou is getting monotonous with her slow one dimensional delivery and evasive answers. The young woman from the Anti Reality Alliance/Slogans Before Logic, I think it was Adrienne Wallace, was completely out of her depth.
Both the Shinners and the Anti Reality crowd were talking about a financial transaction tax, introduced unilaterally, as long as an increase in corporation tax to 15%. It was going to sort out all of our problems without costing any of us anything extra. The AAA woman said that the Multinationals would stay here even without the tax advantage because we were such great people etc. God bless her, I'm sure she means well and all that but how idiotic can you be. If a 12 year old said that you'd be embarrassed for them.


----------



## 44brendan (22 Feb 2016)

Purple said:


> the woman with the short blond hair came across very well,


I'm sure she'll be delighted to get your support!!!


----------



## Purple (22 Feb 2016)

44brendan said:


> I'm sure she'll be delighted to get your support!!!


Thanks


----------



## so-crates (22 Feb 2016)

The brightest things about Adrienne Wallace is generally her jewellery. She means well but ...


----------

