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

ecksor

No point in being an admin if you can't stamp out this sort of crap.

RainyDay

Hi William - That's a pretty poor attempt to drag the debate down to personal abuse. Let's just stick to the facts, shall we?

Originally posted by williamgrogan

Out of 11 or so quotes from Neumann you pick one and claim that it proves he is not anti-eVoting. Presumably you think that’s the weakest one.

However,

Let a=”I am adamantly opposed to the use of fully electronic…”

Let b=”He says that VVAT is not enough”

Then a+b=”He’s opposed to eVoting”

He quite obviously thinks that eVoting as a solution to voting is impossible to solve and the risk is not worth it.

I really thought that you might have learnt your lesson when I made you withdraw your ludicrous 'CEV said the system would work' claim, but you're up to your same old tricks here - adding 2 + 2 to get 17. Your 'a+b' just doesn't add up. He is not opposed to eVoting. He is opposed to eVoting without appropriate controls.

But even if we put Neumann to one side for a moment (btw, he's certaintly no God to me, I hadn't read any of his stuff until you brought him up), who are the other people who make up the 'some' of the founders of VVAT that apparently oppose all eVoting systems (not just Internet voting - you said 'all', remember). 'Some' is a plural term - it means more than one. So who are the others you were referring to (assuming that it's not just more WilliamFiction TM

Originally posted by williamgrogan

That in the fog of insults your failure to prove your point will be obscured?

Actually, I'm not trying to prove any point. I'm just pointing out the massive gaping holes in your argument, but more of that later on.

Originally posted by williamgrogan

As regards the exact figure re known spoiled votes plus effectively spoiled ones further down the list, there is no exact figure as it will change for each election and each constituency.

OK - thank's for confirming that you have no idea how big the problem of unintended spoilt votes is. It could be 2%, or 0.2%, or 0.02% or 0.00000002% - you have no idea, and neither do I. But you recommend that we spend a pile of taxpayers money on solving a problem of unknown size (while simultaenously removing all openness & transparency from the electoral system)? Not very sensible - You (& Minister Cullen) only discovered that eVoting solved the problem of unintended spoilt votes in a last desperate attempt to justify the lorryloads of cash spent on eVoting. And why does it have to be a technology solution - why don't we just try and educate voters (and spend say 5% of what was spent on eVoting in Ireland)? Are you one of those techies that automatically comes up with a technology solution for every problem in life without evaluating alternatives?

Originally posted by williamgrogan

Your comment re counsel crawling all over the votes indicates that you totally miss the point about the votes that cannot be used BUT are NOT counted as spoiled so I’ll explain again. Counsel cannot do anything about votes such as 1,2,2,3,4,5,6. However the voter made a mistake and his vote is lost because of the lack of validation. He is disenfranchised due to the lack of validation.

Have you ever actually attended an election count? Those kind of votes are hotly disputed, where counsel on either side claiming that the voters intentions were clear (particularly in cases where the '2,2' candidates were both for the same party - they don't often get away with it - but they do dispute it. But of course, your whole arguement is entirely flimsy given the absence of any data to quantify this problem.

Originally posted by williamgrogan

I made the point that there must be as many 1,2,2,3,4,5’s as there are 1,1,2,3,4,5 and 1,2,3,3,4’s etc.. therefore there will be hundreds(?) of votes that if needed cannot be used.

Glad to see you've learnt a lesson from this thread and you now include the '?' to indicate that the hundreds is just another William guess. It could be hundreds - It could be thousands - it could be tens - it could be just one or two. You don't know & I don't know - so spending millions of taxpayers money to solve an unquantified problem is a scandlous waste.

Originally posted by williamgrogan

This statement is simply wrong. If we held and election and the FF candidates got no votes then we would know for a fact that it was wrong and there would be an investigation.

Actually, you are right here. Obvious errors could possibly be noticed and could lead to an investigation. However, the value of any such investigation is questionable, as there is no 'primary source' data to go back & investigate.

What I really meant to say was 'Not-so-obvious errors could go undetected'. What if we had gone ahead with eVoting in June, and there was a huge swing to the Shinners? Even if a court were to go ahead and investigate, all they can do is check back to the original ballot modules - so if these all show a huge swing to the Shinners, what can the courts do then? The eVoting system introduces opportunities for corruption of the system. This in turn will lead to a lack of trust in the electoral system which will damage our democracy for a generation.

Originally posted by williamgrogan

Interesting to see you know as little about human nature as you do about eVoting”, but you miss my point, most people are opposed to eVoting BECAUSE of human nature and not because of any understanding of the risks, just like Neumann.

Nice try, but incorrect again. It is clear from the many, many basic errors & lack of understanding in your posts that your support for eVoting is based on ignorance, not knowledge. By contrast, many of those opposed to eVoting do so because they have actually researched the systems and understand the risks fully. Your broad generalisations seem to be based on a few newspaper articles rather than any actual research on the Nedap/Powervote system.

Originally posted by williamgrogan

Missed the point again RD, Internet voting will be additional to the normal method until some day, not too far away now, when everyone does have ACCESS to a PC. The idea is to increase voter turnout.

Ah the ould mantra of increased turnout. Once again, increased turnout for Internet voting only happens in WilliamWorld tm, not in the real world. All the research from the 2003 trials in the UK shows that Internet voting does NOT increase turnout.

But do tell us how your dual paper/Internet voting solution will prevent someone from voting via both methods (as happened with the trials in Sheffield in the UK)? Are you planning on building an entire network to connect up every polling station to a single, secure database? What is it going to cost, and for what benefit? How are you going to prevent voting under duress and vote buying/selling?

Originally posted by williamgrogan

Make DoS a crime punishable by imprisonment,

Your naivete is quite touching. Another WilliamWorldtm solution which is totally impractical in the real world. If imprisonment was a solution, why do we still have drunk drivers and armed robbers? And I can't imagine the script kiddies in Belarus & Peking quaking in the boots at threats of imprisonment from McDowell. Unless of course, you reckon you can get this legislation implemented worldwide simultaenously before any Internet voting solution is implemented.

Originally posted by williamgrogan

The point I am making in this thread is that people often oppose or support things for the wrong reasons.

Unfortunately, that's not what is coming across to readers of your posts. The point coming across to other readers is that you know SFA about the Nedap/Powervote system, you nailed your colours to the mast to support this system some time ago, and you are now scrambling unsuccessfully to find some evidence to support your view.

Originally posted by williamgrogan

Since a child I have been pro-technology, pro-science, future looking.

Me too.

Originally posted by williamgrogan

When eVoting came along I saw it as progress.

Me too - I recall an extensive debate over on Askaboutmoney.com around 2001 or 2002 when I slammed those who didn't trust this system as Luddites & conspiracy theorists.

Originally posted by williamgrogan

So I too read selectively,

Now this is where we go our seperate ways. You read selectively. I read every paper issued by the Dept about the Nedap/Powervote system - and it scared the crap out of me & changed my mind.

Originally posted by williamgrogan

I’m off for a couple of weeks where there are no PCs.

Here's a suggestion - Print off every document on eVoting on the Dept Environment site and the ICTE site and read them all. Maybe when you get back we can have a sensible discussion based on facts and the real world, not WilliamWorldtm

Have a nice break....

ecksor

Actually, I've removed his ability to come back and attempt to debate this. If you want to publish it on your site, then feel free.

davros

Originally posted by ecksor
Actually, I've removed his ability to come back and attempt to debate this. If you want to publish it on your site, then feel free.

No, no that's quite alright, thanks The Society would like to declare this topic quite talked to death. Back to more relevant topics, like magnets and such...

Many thanks to ecksor for keeping an eye on the shop while I was away.