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....
.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.
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.
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.
I don't think our Senate and democracy should be raised in the same breath.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.
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.
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.
So why should we be denied to vote on things that matter or that will impact us on our return?
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.
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?
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.
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...
You were making a good point up until there but really; unscrupulous employers? What century are you living in?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.