Voting in the General Election

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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).
 
  • Like
Reactions: jim
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.
 
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
 
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?

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.

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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
The brightest things about Adrienne Wallace is generally her jewellery. She means well but ...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top