Is pro-VVAT in the same category as anti-MMR?

williamgrogan

I will reply to RainyDay's last post in more detail later but here are some more excerps from the report he quoted.

One conclusion..

The implementation of electronic voting may lead to the increased likelihood to vote of those who currently dont vote due to time pressures

Respondents who used the internet either at home or work generally welcomed the concept of internet voting. The internet was felt to offer a quick and easy option for voting from home.

To use the mocked-up electronic methods, a twenty digit PIN number was needed. Although this had been printed in large font, with a space separating groups of four digits, inputting this number was found extremely difficult by many respondents. The number of digits was found unacceptable by both younger and older respondents. The maximum number of digits found acceptable varied between four and eight.

They didn't exactly make it easy did they? When MS introduced this nonsense recently when registering Office I rang them up and made a complaint.

Many respondents were aware of the use of electronic voting machines as a method for voting in the USA. In some instances this led to discussion surrounding the problems of the last presidential election, and so some mistrust of this method was expressed.

This is simply wrong. The machines that caused the problems were very old non-electronic ones.

Generally it was thought this method of voting would be made available within polling stations. However, it was suggested that electronic voting machines could be installed in supermarkets, petrol stations, shopping centres, post offices and libraries. Having machines in a number of locations was thought to be useful, as people would not have to make a dedicated visit to a polling station, but rather vote when convenient whilst conducting other business.

Some respondents envisioned that the implementation of electronic voting machines would be a good way to introduce electronic voting. It was suggested that these could be introduced prior to other options in order that people would feel more comfortable and confident with the idea of electronic voting.

The idea of a touch screen system was felt to be beneficial. It was thought touch screens would be easier to use and aid those not confident with technology.

williamgrogan

RTE news Tuesday the 29-06-04

Official railways inspector John Welsby says that there are several snags that need to be ironed out before full approval can be given to the new light rail system

Let's hope they don't set up a commission!

After all there is no question but people will be killed by this new technology. Anyway what's wrong with buses or walking?

williamgrogan

Tonight the Cassini mission arrives at Saturn after 7 years.

The engines will fire for over an hour and it will brake while flying in through one side of the rings and back down through the other, constantly making manoeuvres and taking photos. Dozens of other instruments will activate and gather data and all this will be controlled by its computers and their software as Cassini is too far from Earth for the controllers to dictate each step.

Cassini is little more than a computer with an engine. For over 5 years I have been getting a weekly email report on all activities and would like to mention that throughout the mission the computers have continuously been re-programmed. In fact major new software was uploaded recently.

Now how could Cassini ever have been “certified” to launch in 1996 if they hadn’t the software finalised? Cassini may yet fail but it’s highly unlikely to be caused by the software patches. Needless to say the software running on Cassini’s computers is far more complex than a Mickey Mouse election program.

PS

The same sort of anti-technology nuts demonstrated against the launch of Cassini in 1996 and in fact tried in court to prevent its launch. Too dangerous they said, might crash into Earth and spread radioactivity, no doubt an Irish commission would have agreed.

PPS

see bottom right

dogs

Originally posted by williamgrogan
The same sort of anti-technology nuts demonstrated against the
... rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble damn commies rabble rabble rabble rabble

I really thought I could stop posting on this thread, but its seems I can't. I'm looking for one direct answer. Answer my one question please and then I'll happily let you rabble on in peace.

If someone is PRO-VVAT they want a particular feature to exist within an electronic voting system. It shouldn't take great jumps in logic to understand this means if someone is PRO-VVAT they are PRO-electronic voting. You agree on this point ? Not that it's terribly important if you do or not, disagreeing with a fact doesn't make it any less real.

Why do you insist on labelling PRO-VVAT people as "anti-technology" ?

RainyDay

Originally posted by dogs
Why do you insist on labelling PRO-VVAT people as "anti-technology" ?

Because its easier than engaging on the substantive issues about this dodgy system, possibly? The idea of the Irish Computer Society being luddites or anti-technology is a bit sad.

Originally posted by williamgrogan
I will reply to RainyDay's last post in more detail later
[/i]

Take your time. I'm quite happy to wait for you to return from your trainspotting and starwatching sojurns to get back on topic. In the meantime, you might want to check out comments from Michael O'Duffy, head of the Centre for Software Engineering at DCU castigating the level of testing done on the eVoting system. But he's probably just a luddite too.

williamgrogan

If someone is PRO-VVAT they want a particular feature to exist within an electronic voting system. It shouldn't take great jumps in logic to understand this means if someone is PRO-VVAT they are PRO-electronic voting.

Just because someone says they want something does not mean that they do. If someone is opposed to something for irrational reasons they may come up with further irrational reasons to justify their position. This is quite clear in this debate. You can also see this in all anti-technological debates such as anti-MMR. Anti-MMR people believe in impossible conspiracies, ignore massive studies, and distrust anyone they see as opposing their position etc, so it is with the pro-VVAT brigade. They want the 3 jabs, you want paper – same thing.

They too believe that the MD of Diebold was conspiring to “deliver Georgia”, they believe that election officials are easily bribed to load fake copies of software onto machines (even thought how they would ever be able to write software that would duplicate the original 200,000 lines of code and that would be able to run exactly the same on propriety machines, except for the slight loading of votes to their candidate, is very difficult to imagine) and they ignore studies and tests that don’t suit them.

A lot of people reading this thread fail to see that being anti-eVoting is a form of anti-technology just as anti-MMR is, is a form of distrust in computers and consists of gross exaggeration of the risks involved. Those that oppose eVoting are EXACTLY the same sort of people that demonstrated against Cassini. They overestimate the risks and assume that scientists are idiots. There are now organisations that oppose nanotechnology. I am just after joining a thread where people have so far voted 3/1 in favour of the proposition that mobile phones are “a serious danger to your health”. I have a friend, who is a professional computer programmer of 20 years standing that has a “crystal” attached to his mobile phone to protect his health.

I made a very valid point about Cassini which has been totally ignored in the two previous posts. The point has been made that we cannot trust the Nedap software because it’s not yet finished yet the world has invested $3,000,000,000 on a spaceship that as of last month still had major software patches being uploaded to it. Anyone working with software systems knows this. I have NEVER heard of a system that was completely finished and then left for several months before being implemented. ALL software is continuously being reviewed. Expressing this as a major PROBLEM and a source of great uncertainty is literally b******t.

I believe, and even some pro-VVAT people have agreed with me, that if eVoting needs paper then it is useless, so pro-VVAT IS ANTI E-VOTING. eVoting is ELECTRONIC and not PAPER. The word electronic means NO PAPER and no MANUAL COUNTING.

Clear?

Here’s another point I made that has been ignored; much is made of the claim that the majority of computer people oppose eVoting without paper and that means it must be dangerous BUT I pointed out that a survey in the UK showed that 1/3 of those getting the 3 jabs and therefore distrusting MMR ARE HEALTH PROFESSIONALS.

I have already pointed out that when I was a member of the ICS committee in Cork 20 years ago they opposed PCs. So much for quoting them on technology.

As regards “Michael O'Duffy, head of the Centre for Software Engineering at DCU castigating the level of testing done on the eVoting system”, point me to the article.

williamgrogan

When companies write software which offers some significant benefits to the client

Maybe you are not aware of this but for years when watching the counting people on panels and in TV stations have been making the point that voting and counting should be done by computers. Virtually everyone seems to have agreed with this comment at the time. So they did it. They computerised it. That’s the reason it was done. It was felt to be daft in this day and age to be doing all that counting by hand.

and test it properly in a manner which closely matches the live environment it goes live.

The software was tested by the company who supply it and they have been writing election software for 15 years and they supply other countries with working systems. Furthermore we ran several elections as pilot projects with no problems of any relevance. And finally the CEV had it tested by professionals and they confirmed it passed their comprehensive tests.

It doesn’t get shelved provided the price is sensible.

The price was presumably based on quotations. The price is similar to what is charged all over the world for these systems, with the exception of India which uses a very simple system. I would have thought that a large part of the cost is related to the touch screen and the fact that they are not off the shelf PCs with massive cost reductions due to scale.

I read RainyDay’s link to a “report”, not a pilot trial in any meaningful sense, more of a vox pop.

It did not impress me at all.

If, as well as the traditional polling booth, more advanced forms of voting such as Internet, ATM and TV digital/phone are used it MUST mean a higher turnout as otherwise it would mean that some people who would have voted in a polling both and who still can would not now do so because there were other methods and that the total of these “refusnicks” would be greater than those that could now vote because of improved access. ILLOGICAL!

The concept of voting via an ATM was overall disliked and generally rejected

The concept of using ATMs to get money instead of going into the bank is STILL not universally accepted, especially by the same people that would resist eVoting, the old. You still have people complaining that the banks no longer care about the small man, or have no time to talk to you at the counter etc…… I remember one anti-eVoting caller to Joe Duffy said he didn’t even have an ATM card.

It was suggested the use of ATMs would be slow as queues would develop at machines

Well that’s the end of going to the cinema on a Friday night, popular restaurants, most football matches, the toilet at Glastonbury etc….

Concerns were also raised in terms of the reliability of ATMs, they were reported as often out of use

Exaggeration. Often to me means, say once a week? ATMs are out of operation maybe 1 in a 100 times other than for a few minutes per day when they are being loaded with money.

In a small number of cases respondents suggested that the use of ATMs would be unethical. It was thought that this method would lead to the commercialisation of voting

No doubt the anti-business lobby.

I have already referred to this “the software is not ready” argument but here’s another point. Going back 20 years I had clients wondering why they should pay a yearly charge for new updated versions. “Surely”, they said, “it’s finished by now”? Yet here I am 20 years later and I could do with 10 more programmers as there are so many mods being demanded. I seriously doubt that there is a single large software system NOT being continuously upgraded, so that argument is simply based on a total lack of knowledge of the computer industry. It sounds great, “how can we trust the system, its not even finished”, but computer systems never are.

Every time you buy any new piece of technology it’s different, every 5 years cars get more complex, its called progress and some people hate it. Why they do is a very complex issue to do with their genes, upbringing, training, experiences, irrational fears, ignorance and who knows what else.

And finally, are you going to be honest enough to withdraw your statement that the CEV said that the Nedap/Powervote system 'would work'

If I & my colleagues wrote a software system to gather in votes, store them and count them and then I tested it myself and got other professionals to test it comprehensively I would be sure to a very high degree of certainty that it would work again and again and again. That’s science for you. That’s why I believe that the MMR is almost certainly safe and does not cause Autism and why the eVoting as purchased by the Government would have worked. However, there are 20% of the population that disagree and risk their children’s health by not immunising them. It seems no guarantees will satisfy either set of conspiracy theorists.

RainyDay

Originally posted by williamgrogan
Just because someone says they want something does not mean that they do. If someone is opposed to something for irrational reasons they may come up with further irrational reasons to justify their position. This is quite clear in this debate. You can also see this in all anti-technological debates such as anti-MMR. Anti-MMR people believe in impossible conspiracies, ignore massive studies, and distrust anyone they see as opposing their position etc, so it is with the pro-VVAT brigade. They want the 3 jabs, you want paper – same thing.

Interesting logic – the logical conclusion of this is that just because William says they don’t want VVAT does not mean that William actually doesn’t want VVAT. We’ve seen piles of irrational reasons in your argument – manufactured conclusions from the CEV report, irrelevant comparisions to MMR, Cassini, LUAS etc. So I conclude that you actually DO want VVAT and you’re just trolling on this debate – You can’t argue with that now, can you?

Originally posted by williamgrogan
They too believe that the MD of Diebold was conspiring to “deliver Georgia”, they believe that election officials are easily bribed to load fake copies of software onto machines (even thought how they would ever be able to write software that would duplicate the original 200,000 lines of code and that would be able to run exactly the same on propriety machines, except for the slight loading of votes to their candidate, is very difficult to imagine) and they ignore studies and tests that don’t suit them.

You are displaying a worrying lack of basic knowledge of the Nedap/Powervote system in several of your recent posts (more catches down below). I’m starting to wonder if there is any rational basis for your opposition to VVAT. How much have you actually read about this system? Or do you take the view that any oul eVoting system is good enough for us, regardless of whether it works or meets our requirements? On this particular point, there is of course no reason to duplicate the original ines or code or run anything on proprietary machines. As pointed out earlier in this thread, all they would need would be a simple VB script to access the Access database on the count centre PC and bias the votes towards one candidate or party. The only prior knowledge required would be the Access DB scheme. Not that hard at all at all.

Originally posted by williamgrogan
A lot of people reading this thread fail to see that being anti-eVoting is a form of anti-technology just as anti-MMR is, is a form of distrust in computers and consists of gross exaggeration of the risks involved. Those that oppose eVoting are EXACTLY the same sort of people that demonstrated against Cassini. They overestimate the risks and assume that scientists are idiots. There are now organisations that oppose nanotechnology. I am just after joining a thread where people have so far voted 3/1 in favour of the proposition that mobile phones are “a serious danger to your health”. I have a friend, who is a professional computer programmer of 20 years standing that has a “crystal” attached to his mobile phone to protect his health.

Focus William, focus. Stop looking at the spacecrafts and the trains and the MMR jabs and mobile phones and nanotechnology. Just look at the proposed Nedap/Powervote system – it’s a pile of junk that has cost the taxpayer 55 million euro. Your comparisions are entirely irrelevant to this issue.

Originally posted by williamgrogan
made a very valid point about Cassini which has been totally ignored in the two previous posts. The point has been made that we cannot trust the Nedap software because it’s not yet finished yet the world has invested $3,000,000,000 on a spaceship that as of last month still had major software patches being uploaded to it. Anyone working with software systems knows this. I have NEVER heard of a system that was completely finished and then left for several months before being implemented. ALL software is continuously being reviewed. Expressing this as a major PROBLEM and a source of great uncertainty is literally b******t.

You seem to have missed out one important difference between the Cassini spaceship program and the Nedap/Powervote eVoting system. Let me try to explain this for you. How can I put this – One is the Cassini spaceship program and the other is the Nedap/Powervote eVoting system. It’s a bloody spaceship man. There is a good reason for permitting remote software upgrades. I’d bet a fiver that some of the $3 billion budget was spent on appropriate control & testing procedures to support remove software upgrades.

The Nedap/Powervote system is not up in space. It is on the ground. There is no good reason for remote software upgrades. There are no testing and control procedures in place to support remote software upgrades. There is no good reason for NOT having a version of software to meet our requirements 2 months before the election after a 5-6 year project. That’s the difference. Clear? Just because you can drive a F1 car at 200 mph in Silverstone doesn't mean that you can drive a Fiat 127 at 200 mph over cobblestones.

Originally posted by williamgrogan
I believe, and even some pro-VVAT people have agreed with me, that if eVoting needs paper then it is useless, so pro-VVAT IS ANTI E-VOTING. eVoting is ELECTRONIC and not PAPER. The word electronic means NO PAPER and no MANUAL COUNTING.

Clear?

Many pro-VVAT people (me included) are not anti-eVoting but seriously question the ROI (return on investment). Why should we spend 55 million of taxpayers money to give us two minor benefits;
- reduced unintended spoilt votes
- count results 24 hours earlier (for most constituencies)

How many hospitals would this have provided? How many school rebuilds would this have provided? This doesn’t mean I’m anti-eVoting – It just means I’m asking sensible questions about prioritisation of Govt spending. But do feel free to impose inappropriate labels on people like me if that makes you happy by helping you to hide from the real issues involved.

Originally posted by williamgrogan
I have already pointed out that when I was a member of the ICS committee in Cork 20 years ago they opposed PCs. So much for quoting them on technology.

Don’t hold the rest of the ICS to the strange standards of the Cork branch.


Continued in next post

RainyDay

Originally posted by williamgrogan
As regards “Michael O'Duffy, head of the Centre for Software Engineering at DCU castigating the level of testing done on the eVoting system”, point me to the article.

See attached .jpg copy (Copyright Knowledge Ireland magazine) – some interesting comments like;

O’Duffy called into question the approach that the Dept took to testing […] “There were five different areas of testing, each with a limited brief, so they were effectively silos […] nobody was given responsibility for an entire review from start to finish and that’s the big criticism here.”

Originally posted by williamgrogan
Maybe you are not aware of this but for years when watching the counting people on panels and in TV stations have been making the point that voting and counting should be done by computers. Virtually everyone seems to have agreed with this comment at the time. So they did it. They computerised it. That’s the reason it was done. It was felt to be daft in this day and age to be doing all that counting by hand.

So you criticise the ‘irrational’ opposition to eVoting and you make up stuff like ‘Virtually every seems to have agreed’. This is just rubbish. Virtually everyone didn’t agree. And even if they did, that doesn’t make the sloppy system that we ended up with acceptable.

Originally posted by williamgrogan
The software was tested by the company who supply it and they have been writing election software for 15 years and they supply other countries with working systems. Furthermore we ran several elections as pilot projects with no problems of any relevance. And finally the CEV had it tested by professionals and they confirmed it passed their comprehensive tests.

This is another example of where you display tremendous ignorance of the botched Irish eVoting project. The software wasn’t tested by the supplying company. It was tested by independent consultancies paid for by you & me, the taxpayer. In the case of the counting software, this was tested by two guys from the Electoral Reform Society (again at our expense) who found literally hundreds of bugs in the software which we had paid for. The pilot projects proved little (as the CEV concluded) as if there were errors in the software, there was no way of detecting these. All it proves is that the election result was ‘broadly in line with expectations’. This does not meet my standards for a system which controls the future Governments of our state. And it didn’t pass ALL the CEV tests – they found one bug, and pointed out the need for end-to-end testing in addition.

Originally posted by williamgrogan
The price was presumably based on quotations. The price is similar to what is charged all over the world for these systems, with the exception of India which uses a very simple system. I would have thought that a large part of the cost is related to the touch screen and the fact that they are not off the shelf PCs with massive cost reductions due to scale.

Third example of basic ignorance of the Irish system. There are NO touch-screen components in the Nedap/Powervote system. And I’d be very interested in seeing the data to support your comment that “The price is similar to what is charged all over the world for these systems” – this wouldn’t be another of those ‘facts’ you just pluck out of the air, would it?

Originally posted by williamgrogan
I read RainyDay’s link to a “report”, not a pilot trial in any meaningful sense, more of a vox pop.

It did not impress me at all.

OK – so let’s just understand this. You tell us that you are ABSOLUTELY convinced in your head that eVoting will lead to improved turnout, but when a reputable market research firm does serious market research on this specific point, you choose to be ‘not impressed’. Now that’s what I call irrational opposition. Why don’t you just clasp you hands over your ears and sing a happy tune loudly? That does a great job at keeping real evidence out of your head, when you don’t like it.

Originally posted by williamgrogan
If, as well as the traditional polling booth, more advanced forms of voting such as Internet, ATM and TV digital/phone are used it MUST mean a higher turnout as otherwise it would mean that some people who would have voted in a polling both and who still can would not now do so because there were other methods and that the total of these “refusnicks” would be greater than those that could now vote because of improved access. ILLOGICAL!

Newsflash, William – People are illogical. You may not like this, but it is reality. You can keep hitting your head against a brick wall, but that is not going to change the fact that all available data refutes the point will result in increased turnout.

Originally posted by williamgrogan
The concept of using ATMs to get money instead of going into the bank is STILL not universally accepted, especially by the same people that would resist eVoting, the old. You still have people complaining that the banks no longer care about the small man, or have no time to talk to you at the counter etc…… I remember one anti-eVoting caller to Joe Duffy said he didn’t even have an ATM card.

Again, the fact that you don’t like how such people react won’t change their behaviour. You seem to want to implement an eVoting because it should increase the turnout, when you know in fact that it won’t increase the turnout. Now that’s illogical.

Originally posted by williamgrogan
I have already referred to this “the software is not ready” argument but here’s another point. Going back 20 years I had clients wondering why they should pay a yearly charge for new updated versions. “Surely”, they said, “it’s finished by now”? Yet here I am 20 years later and I could do with 10 more programmers as there are so many mods being demanded. I seriously doubt that there is a single large software system NOT being continuously upgraded, so that argument is simply based on a total lack of knowledge of the computer industry. It sounds great, “how can we trust the system, its not even finished”, but computer systems never are.

Every time you buy any new piece of technology it’s different, every 5 years cars get more complex, its called progress and some people hate it. Why they do is a very complex issue to do with their genes, upbringing, training, experiences, irrational fears, ignorance and who knows what else.

You are clearly demonstrating your lack of understanding of eVoting systems once again. The requirements for this system are specified by legislation. The only time there should be ANY system changes/new releases is when the legislation changes. With eVoting systems, there is no reason for continuous upgrades, and a requirement for ongoing upgrades is indicative of buggy software in this case. eVoting systems are fundamentally different to commercial software systems, so your comparison is irrelevant.

Originally posted by williamgrogan
If I & my colleagues wrote a software system to gather in votes, store them and count them and then I tested it myself and got other professionals to test it comprehensively I would be sure to a very high degree of certainty that it would work again and again and again. That’s science for you. That’s why I believe that the MMR is almost certainly safe and does not cause Autism and why the eVoting as purchased by the Government would have worked. However, there are 20% of the population that disagree and risk their children’s health by not immunising them. It seems no guarantees will satisfy either set of conspiracy theorists.

You are demonstrating the attitude of the back-room techie. You don’t seem to understand that the system is only as good as the people & processes at implementation stage. These are the variables that the developer can’t control, yet you choose just to ignore these fundamental points.

Do us all a favour, William. Spend the weekend reading the documents on the Dept of Environment site and the ICTE site, and when you really understand how the Nedap/Powervote system works (or doesn’t work). Then come back with some serious posts.

Best regards - RainyDay

williamgrogan

I’ll tackle your last post one point at a time. You said that because you were pro-VVAT that that did not mean that you were anti-eVoting.

You tried to insinuate this was ridiculous with as much sarcasm as you could muster. If you are pro-VVAT then you are anti-eVoting. There are people who have admitted as much.

Many people who are pro-VVAT are also pro-Open Source, anti-business and even anti-MS, so the REASON they advocate VVAT is more to do with stopping eVoting altogether, which of course has been done at least temporarily in Ireland. (The anti-MMR have stopped 20% of the Irish & UK children being vaccinated.) The women who first formulated VVAT had as a tutor someone who is totally opposed to eVoting and who has described Internet voting as madness.

If someone said they were pro-car but anti-petrol, wanted a top speed limit of 10 mph and a man with a flag to walk in front of the cars we wouldn’t exactly label him a boy racer, would we?

VVAT is to eVoting what the 3 jabs are to the anti-MMR brigade.

Now here above I have made another comparison. You don’t seem to like comparisons but I can use them to prove that certain statements you make do not stand up. You cannot contradict my statement that being pro-VVAT MUST MEAN that you are pro-eVoting.

Why are my comparisons to MMR irrelevant?

One of the reasons I made this comparison is because this is the Skeptics board. Most Skeptics would not fear MMR and would know that many of the anti-MMR people use techniques in their arguments that they can easily see through. I have listed ~20 strong similarities between the anti-MMR and the anti-eVoting lobbies. One is the “conspiracy theory”. Anti-MMR believe that the vaccination companies make vaccines solely to make money and that we do not need them. They think there is a conspiracy between doctors, the government and big-Pharm to make the people take dangerous medicines. Many of the anti-eVoting believe in similar and highly unlikely conspiracies with eVoting, like the Diebold MD robbing Georgia or that in the USA that the Republican Party wants to introduce eVoting to corrupt democracy.

I have no doubt that you fear the risks of eVoting in the same way as the anti-MMR fear vaccination and they too (and I have debated it with them) think they are logical and have evidence on their side but the Skeptic wouldn’t agree, nor should he agree when the anti-eVoting lobby make similar points either.

RainyDay

Originally posted by williamgrogan
If you are pro-VVAT then you are anti-eVoting. There are people who have admitted as much.

Originally posted by williamgrogan
You cannot contradict my statement that being pro-VVAT MUST MEAN that you are pro-eVoting.

Ah Jeez William, which are you accusing me of - pro or anti? Please get your thoughts straight in your head before you inflict them on us.

Your conclusion that "If you are pro-VVAT then you are anti-eVoting" because "There are people who have admitted as much" is just a joke. It may be that certain people think this way, but that doesn't mean I think this way. You can't fit people into little boxes with little labels. We are all individuals.

And you do realise that you have lost all credibility as a skeptic with your repeated attempts to make up 'truths' to suit your purpose while ignoring good, hard evidence simply because you don't like the message. Your ability to ignore the evidence and jump to conclusions on grounds like 'there are people who have admitted as much' is truly breathtaking.

When you are in a hole, stop digging.

dogs

Originally posted by williamgrogan
Just because someone says they want something does not mean that they do.

Wow.

I am truly vanquished sir. My opinions lie around my ankles.

Hail Nedap.

Victor

Originally posted by williamgrogan
After all there is no question but people will be killed by this new technology. Anyway what's wrong with buses or walking?

Trams have been operating for what 200 years now? Citadis trams are currently is use elsewhere. Rail infrastructure is fairly standard. Lots of testing has been carried out.

Wednesday's launch was largely political, but also a live test. Full operations won't happen for a few weeks.

Luas is an incremental change at most, but really is only an implementation of existing technology and systems. It and the traffic it interacts with still messes up. However, catastrophic failure is unlikely.

Meanwhile the evoting implementation by the government was was 50% new?

williamgrogan

RainyDay's original comment was....

If someone is PRO-VVAT they want a particular feature to exist within an electronic voting system. It shouldn't take great jumps in logic to understand this means if someone is PRO-VVAT they are PRO-electronic voting

The point you made was that being pro-VVAT must mean that one is pro-eVoting because one cannot have VVAT without eVoting as it's part of it.

This is what I disagree with. I can disprove this by finding individuals that are pro-VVAT AND anti-eVoting. Which I have. In other words I can disprove your rule with the exceptions. I suspect that Rebecca Mercuri herself falls into this category. Furthermore if you put so many restrictions on a system that it won’t function then you are effectively opposed to it, irrespective of what you say.

Quite a few people claim that they are not anti-eVoting but just anti-the choice of the government. I don’t accept this is the case for most of the anti-’s. I have no doubt a lot of people were anti-eVoting before they knew much about the system the government picked. Certainly many interviewed on the radio were horrified about eVoting and knew nothing about the particular system. Much of the negative stuff that has been said has been relevant to any system and not just Nedap’s. Obviously pro-VVAT are opposed to virtually every system in use because none have the Mercuri cabinet. If you are opposed to virtually every example of any product in use then it is fairly accurate to say you are opposed to the concept. Wouldn’t it sound funny if someone said, “I love cars, I am very pro-car but I hate Ford, BMW, Merc’s, Volvo’s, Audis ……..”.

*****

I don't except "we are all individuals" as RainyDay said. Very few people, if any, can be described as truly individual. People, even though you seem to deny it, are groupable. When they belong to a group much of what they think is dictated by the group. Needless to say no one will admit that their opinions on particular subjects are not logical and evidence based and instead mainly based on their genes, upbringing, IQ, education and family backgrounds etc.

Think how you would stick out at Glastonbury with a badge that said, “Nuclear Power – Yes Please” or “Vote Tory”.

People who do not think about things, (e.g. non-Skeptics), often simply adopt all the “beliefs” of the group they belong to, then afterwards they try to rationalise their beliefs.

The risk of the eVoting the government picked causing a major problem is vanishingly small and the opposition to it is out of all proportion to the risk. People cannot see that and try all sorts of irrational arguments to support their incorrect beliefs.

In the USA most of the opposition to eVoting comes from the Democrats and in Ireland the Labour Party & the Green religion. All left of centre. Is it a coincidence? (PS I read a couple of days ago that John Gormley TD is opposed to the Fluoridation of water.)

williamgrogan

Irish Times 02-07-04

"Around 300 commuters were forced off a Luas tram yesterday after it was involved in a collision with a car on Dublin's Harcourt Street. It was the first accident involving the new light-rail system"

RainyDay

This thread is getting quite ridiculous. William, your posts are becoming increasingly irrational and have no relation to reality.

Originally posted by williamgrogan
RainyDay's original comment was...."If someone is PRO-VVAT they want a particular feature to exist within an electronic voting system. It shouldn't take great jumps in logic to understand this means if someone is PRO-VVAT they are PRO-electronic voting"

RainyDay never said this. Dogs said this. You really will have to pay more attention if we are ever going to lift this debate up out of the quagmire of slime in which it is now lodged.

Originally posted by williamgrogan
In the USA most of the opposition to eVoting comes from the Democrats and in Ireland the Labour Party & the Green religion. All left of centre. Is it a coincidence?

Has the vague possibility that most people in the Govt parties (here and in the USA) opt not to wash their dirty linen in public entered your head? Do you reckon that Joe McCarthy (former PD election agent) is on the left? Do you reckon the ICS & Michael O'Duffy from DCU are all on the left?

Originally posted by williamgrogan
I don't except "we are all individuals" as RainyDay said. Very few people, if any, can be described as truly individual. People, even though you seem to deny it, are groupable. When they belong to a group much of what they think is dictated by the group. Needless to say no one will admit that their opinions on particular subjects are not logical and evidence based

Now that's a cracker. I presume you meant 'accept', not 'except'. Your entire premise is based on the fact that human beings are not individuals. There really is little point taking this debate any further.

You insist on labelling and grouping people instead of listening to the evidence. You make up evidence to suit your purpose ('the CEV said the system would work') and ignore hard, independent data (UK Govt survey of voter attitudes). You are an embarrassment to the skeptic cause.

williamgrogan

Boy! What an error, I said RainyDay and not Dogs! Good grief, I do apologise.

The opposition to eVoting comes from a number of sources. On the political front, it seems to be left of centre based. Is this a co-incidence?

It’s a simple question. Yes or No.

“Except” instead of “accept”, wow, I must stop posting at one o’clock in the morning.

Your entire premise is based on the fact that human beings are not individuals

I didn’t say that. Another gross exaggeration. I was simply responding to the statement that “we are all individuals” and that this implies that all our individual opinions are stand alone and not influenced by the group/groups we belong to.

Can I suggest that the labour party with its heavy trade union influence (Pat R. was a trade union official) is far more likely to take an anti-technology stance than a more business orientated party or a party made up of business men and “professionals”. If you spend a great deal of your life fighting efficiency in companies brought about by automation then it may make you anti-technology. (I have noticed this seems to have declined in the last couple of decades but was very common in the 70’s.)

You surely cannot dismiss the argument that people form opinions to a very large extent based on their existing mind set.

RainyDay

Originally posted by williamgrogan
The opposition to eVoting comes from a number of sources. On the political front, it seems to be left of centre based. Is this a co-incidence?

It’s a simple question. Yes or No.

Do you consider Fine Gael to be left of centre also?

Wow - You are really onto something with this amazing discovery here. Political opposition to a Govt proposal seems to be coming mainly from the opposition parties - Hold the front page, breaking news story from William.

The explanation for this 'coincidence' is in my post above - "Has the vague possibility that most people in the Govt parties (here and in the USA) opt not to wash their dirty linen in public entered your head?"

Originally posted by williamgrogan
Can I suggest that the labour party with its heavy trade union influence (Pat R. was a trade union official) is far more likely to take an anti-technology stance than a more business orientated party or a party made up of business men and “professionals”. If you spend a great deal of your life fighting efficiency in companies brought about by automation then it may make you anti-technology. (I have noticed this seems to have declined in the last couple of decades but was very common in the 70’s.)

Welcome to the naughties, William. The attitudes/labels that you are trying to impose on people are 30 years out of date. The Labour Party is not anti eVoting or anti-technology. It is anti the Nedap/Powervote kludged system that has cost us 55m of taxpayers money.

Originally posted by williamgrogan
You surely cannot dismiss the argument that people form opinions to a very large extent based on their existing mind set.

You are never going to understand this issue until you first stop trying to impose labels or mindsets and start trying to understand the fundamental problems with the Nedap/Powervote system. As I explained earlier in the thread, I had the gut feeling that it was reliable, until I really starting looking into the Dept Environment papers. Then my view changed very quickly....


Still waiting for you to withdraw your fictional claim that the CEV said that 'the system would work'.

williamgrogan

As of a few minutes ago I see that the anti-MMR people are now saying that Crohn's disease and Ulcerative colitis may be caused by MMR and claim that there is also a risk from CJD.

See this

This is related to the point I am making. You start off as anti-MMR and then look for evidence that it’s dangerous. You are delighted that a scientist "discovers" a link to Autism and when that is totally discredited you then find a link to Crohn's disease and after that has been discredited you look for something else.

That's what happens with "anti-" people.

They instinctively hate something or for illogical reasons, such as a fear of technology, and then look for any crumb of evidence that will support their theory.

williamgrogan

Do you consider Fine Gael to be left of centre also?

Don’t they? You are hardly suggesting Pat R. will go into power with a right wing party?

Anyway, there is also political opportunism.

I do not believe that if FG came into government and inherited the eVoting project as selected by the relevant dept. that they would have abandoned it.

The thing about political opportunism and the realities of being in opposition is that you try and attack the government on every opportunity, so attack their eVoting and then look for as much reason to discredit it as possible. The rights and wrongs tend to take a back seat.

"Has the vague possibility that most people in the Govt parties (here and in the USA) opt not to wash their dirty linen in public entered your head?"

I don’t know what you mean by this.

The attitudes/labels that you are trying to impose on people are 30 years out of date. The Labour Party is not anti eVoting or anti-technology

Very interesting hornet’s next you open here. I think that the Labour Party today would not be as opposed to technology as they would have been but they still have this culture and instinctively they would oppose technology. It might be fading but its still there. And as for the Green religion……..

You are ducking and dodging around my point about why people hold the opinions on particular things that they do. Let me ask again, do you think people form opinions on particular matters based largely on their mind set or the group they belong to? If you look at all those that oppose eVoting, list their reasons, and then eliminate those that oppose it for "the wrong reasons" you are left with very few people.

There are those that oppose it because it’s not open source, because it doesn’t have VVAT, because it uses an MS product, because they are anti-technology, because they are conspiracy theorists (the rob Georgia brigade), they exaggerate the problems that have been reported and continue to spread lies, they are in the opposition, they like dancing at the cross roads (McGurk), because they are anti-globalisation etc..

I except that you personally may not be a left wing, political opportunist, anti-technology, Nike wearing, anti-business Luddite but then why get so hot under the collar about the introduction of a computer system into a simple function like recording and counting votes? A system that would be more accurate, return quicker results, eliminate by validation the votes spoiled in error, and which the election officials love.

Still waiting for you to withdraw your fictional claim that the CEV said that 'the system would work'.

I’ve answered this a load of times. Didn’t you like my answers?

RainyDay

Fine Gael are a centre-right party.

I'm not ducking anything. You insist on assuming that people oppose eVoting because of their political or social backgrounds. This is just a diversion to avoid facing up to the fact that the Nedap/Powervote system chosen by the Dept of Environment and paid for with taxpayers money is a pile of junk full of holes & bugs. This is the basis for my & the Labour party's opposition to this system. It is NOT more accurate than the current system.

I really thought you might be honourable enough to withdraw your false, unsupported allegation that the CEV said that the system would work. If you want to say that they 'implied' something, I'll listen to that. If you want to say that they said it could work, I'll listen to that. But to say that the CEV said that the system would work is an untruth. To leave this untruth standing washes away any minor remaining vestiges of creditibility which you had retained until now.

Victor

Originally posted by williamgrogan
Irish Times 02-07-04"Around 300 commuters were forced off a Luas tram yesterday after it was involved in a collision with a car on Dublin's Harcourt Street. It was the first accident involving the new light-rail system"

A car left the road and hit an (apparently) stopped tram. Not directly a tram issue.

"Has the vague possibility that most people in the Govt parties (here and in the USA) opt not to wash their dirty linen in public entered your head?"

Originally posted by williamgrogan
I don’t know what you mean by this.

It means that while Mary Harney expressed some reservations about the evoting system, those inside FF were very quiet. In one of his few moments of clarity, Royston Brady said he had some reservations about the system and he was prompty dropped from the launch in the Mansion House.

williamgrogan

I can't believe anyone would quote Royston Brady accept to make fun of him.

Mary Harney knows nothing about technical matters and funny she normally just does what the advisers tell her. Can you be more specific on what she said?

Not directly a tram issue

The vast majority of the "issues" reported as faults with eVoting have had nothing to do with the eVoting system either. For one period of time an eVoting "problem" doing the rounds was caused by the human election workers telling people to vote at the wrong booth.

PS

I'll tell you something about Ms Harney. I was for several years involved in a project to train disadvantaged people in computer skills and she opposed us at every turn, even though it was based in her constituency. Presumably because she thought that working class people don't make good programmers.

RainyDay

Originally posted by williamgrogan
The vast majority of the "issues" reported as faults with eVoting have had nothing to do with the eVoting system either. For one period of time an eVoting "problem" doing the rounds was caused by the human election workers telling people to vote at the wrong booth.

This demonstrates the classic blinkered view of the back-room techie beautifully. The system is only as good as the people who use it and the control processes that are implemented. While such faults do not show technical faults with the system, they demonstrate the very real human issues that surround implementation of such systems. To ignore or disparage such human/process issues is very dangerous. There is no point in having a system which works perfectly in a test environment, but is just unusable in the real world.

You can keep claiming that ATM voting will improve turnout, but the best evidence currently available shows that the majority of people don't feel this way. It really doesn't matter whether they are right or wrong, or why they feel this way. It's reality - face up to it.

But by the way, the Nedap/Powervote system didn't even work perfectly in the test environments.

williamgrogan

But to say that the CEV said that the system would work is an untruth

I really thought that I had trashed this out to exhaustion; however, I’ll have another go.

If one professionally tests a computer system and it passes all the tests, if it was used in a pilot study for a referendum and a general election constituency and SF didn’t get 100% of the vote and if the CEV said that they were not shelving it because of any evidence that it wouldn’t work and if tested software is boringly predictable in so far that it does exactly the same thing time after time after time then it’s very reasonable to predict in so far as any prediction can be made about anything working in the future that it will work or at the very least that there is a very high probability that it will work. It is more accurate than paper which at best is only 98% accurate.

You are still ducking; admit that most people’s opinions on any particular matter is related to many things other than the matter in hand. If you deny it I can easily prove it.

An overview

My point is that the bulk of the anti-eVoting argument is coming from those that oppose eVoting per se.

The VVAT thing is an import from the USA and from a clique that oppose eVoting on theoretical academic grounds.

Recording votes & counting them is a minor programming affair and the system the government picked would have worked OK, and hopefully will still be implemented.

The whole issue would not have arisen if there was not already an anti-eVoting movement on the internet. A movement that opposes virtually all existing electronic systems. In fact even those that do not like aspects of the Nedap system would not even have got involved because they never get involved in government computer projects unless the anti eVoting movement already existed.

I am quite sure the new system to record penalty points is at last as bad as the eVoting the government picked. Any programmer could have written a penalty points system that was based on the web that the Guards could have updated from any PC linked to the web for under €100,000 yet they will almost certainly spend millions and take years. There are all sorts of complicated reasons for this that I could go into but that’s for another day (safe pair of hands, lack of risk, poorly motivated and paid civil servants, poor quality of the civil servant technical people, lack of competition to weed out overspending (see Health Service as an example) etc.). I have personal knowledge of a government computer system that up to relatively recently was being written in Access Version 2.0 – I kid you not.

So in summary, all the fuss was started by anti-eVoting people, then a load of other anti-s joined the bandwagon, the opposition made a football out of it, the issue got into the public domain and then people started picking holes in the project. The same would happen if any computer system was so inspected.

In fact the extraordinary and unique extra testing by the extraordinary and unique CEV said that their testing showed it worked. Most of their criticisms were related to lack of time to test further, improvements in the human side of security and a lack of co-operation from the suppliers re source code. The tests did show that the system worked as required. The Precautionary Principle, I cannot prove that it may not work in some unforeseen circumstance so drop it.

NinjaBart

Originally posted by williamgrogan
I'll tell you something about Ms Harney. I was for several years involved in a project to train disadvantaged people in computer skills and she opposed us at every turn, even though it was based in her constituency. Presumably because she thought that working class people don't make good programmers.

was taht the thing in clondalkin where you "trained" beginer programmers by having them work on that piece of business software that you keep harping on about?

williamgrogan

That was it. But they also trained on Windows, Office, VB, Personal Development, Book-keeping and several other subjects.

Microsoft employed about 1/2 of all those that completed the two courses about 15 people. One of the reasons I am not anti-MS is because I know that MS and Bill Gates are big supporters of education for disadvantaged young people. His foundation support 20,000 black students per year going through college in the USA.

4 of the students now run a computer company in Clondalkin.

But, you know, any time you get involved in anything you get people sniping from the wings.

Anyway now that we are personal, what's your name?

NinjaBart

hardly matters who i am since i can't be regarded as an individual anyway.

RainyDay

Originally posted by williamgrogan
I really thought that I had trashed this out to exhaustion; however, I’ll have another go.

If one professionally tests a computer system and it passes all the tests, if it was used in a pilot study for a referendum and a general election constituency and SF didn’t get 100% of the vote and if the CEV said that they were not shelving it because of any evidence that it wouldn’t work and if tested software is boringly predictable in so far that it does exactly the same thing time after time after time then it’s very reasonable to predict in so far as any prediction can be made about anything working in the future that it will work or at the very least that there is a very high probability that it will work.

Can we be very, very clear here. In this post earlier in this thread, you stated that the CEV said "they believed that the system would work" (direct quote). That is very, very different to what you are now saying. You are now saying that it is William's prediction based on William's interpretation of the CEV report that the system would work. So please clarify - are you still claiming that the CEV said (& I mean 'said', not 'implied' or 'suggested' or anything else) that the system would work. You have failed to produce any evidence from the CEV report to support this claim. Just for the record, I'm going to keep asking you ad nauseum on every post on this thread to back up or withdraw this claim until you do one or the other. So which is it, William?

Originally posted by williamgrogan
It is more accurate than paper which at best is only 98% accurate.

Please provide your source for the 98% figure, or is it just another 'fact' that you have plucked out of the air?

Originally posted by williamgrogan
You are still ducking; admit that most people’s opinions on any particular matter is related to many things other than the matter in hand.

I can only assume that you've spent a bit too much time looking in the mirror recently, possibly obsessing about the relative sizes of your ear canals. The accusation that you are directing at the eVoting movement of NOT basing their views on the facts could be more usefully directed at yourself. You appear to have some mental block on listening to relevant views on the facts regarding the proposed eVoting system. You simply ignore any views coming from the left, or from the US, or from Joe Duffy for no good reason other than your own personal prejudices. In fact, you ignore any facts which don't suit your own agenda. While this kind of biassed view isn't that uncommon in Ireland, it is very uncommon amongst those who claim to be skeptics and who highlight the importance of basing their views on the available data.

Originally posted by williamgrogan

My point is that the bulk of the anti-eVoting argument is coming from those that oppose eVoting per se.

The VVAT thing is an import from the USA and from a clique that oppose eVoting on theoretical academic grounds.
[...]
The whole issue would not have arisen if there was not already an anti-eVoting movement on the internet. A movement that opposes virtually all existing electronic systems. In fact even those that do not like aspects of the Nedap system would not even have got involved because they never get involved in government computer projects unless the anti eVoting movement already existed.

Please provide the basis for your conclusion that the anti-eVoting movement "opposes virtually all existing electronic systems"?

You're looking at the symption (the existance of an pro-VVAT movement) rather than the cause (the poor quality of the many eVoting systems out there). The CEV was not swayed by the existance of a pro-VVAT movement or a few web-pages or discussion groups. The CEV was swayed by rational, detailed arguement supported by relevant facts which pointed out the many, many holes in the Nedap/Powervote system.

You are also missing out the importance of voting. While systems which control penalty points, or hospital records or our tax affairs are important, they pale by comparison to eVoting. Let's state the obvious - the eVoting system will determine control of every aspect of the country for 5 years or so. The standards of quality, accuracy and transparency expected for an eVoting system are much, much higher than any other application.

williamgrogan

Business Post Sunday 04-07-04

McDowell hits out at Luas danger

The Minister for Justice has threatened to hold the Luas chief executive personally and morally responsible for accidents due to poor safety at crossings.

....

The minister stated that he had written to Allen on a previous occasion pointing out that someone would be killed unless safety was improved at the crossing, and stressing that schoolchildren were the likely victims.


Sounds like we need to shelve it, lets face it a human life is worth more than an election and we shelved eVoting without any evidence of immanent failure, especially that now that we are in a new era where a large proportion of the population think that very small risks are unacceptable.

here for full article