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

dahamsta

Originally posted by williamgrogan
The point I was making, and the point still applies now that we have the exact wording, is that the web designer who constructed the web site understood it was an anti-eVoting campaign.

[...]

I'll read the rest of your post when you take the time to read mine.

adam

williamgrogan

The following article shows how disinformation & propaganda can spread, this time to Scotland. Remember journalists are generally very lazy and will lift “copy” from wherever they can get it.

http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=2788114

Leading critics of the system claimed today that documents made available under the terms of Irish Freedom of Information legislation showed up flaws reported by officials when e-voting was used in a trial basis in a handful of constituencies in the last Irish general election two years ago.

“showed up flaws”

The returning officer said that the so called “flaws” have existed for every election he has been involved in for 28 years yet this paragraph would give one the impression that the “flaws” were related to “e-voting”.

How about this blatant lie….

Opponents of the concept maintain that votes went missing in one e-poll constituency at the last election, while too many were counted in another.

Are you saying that you believe that “votes went missing”?

Come on, cut the bull****, do you think “votes went missing”?

Personally, I would be ashamed to be associated with any campaign that was this dishonest.

No genuine skeptic could be associated with manipulation of the truth on this scale.

ShaneHogan

Originally posted by williamgrogan
Most people reading the Green statement would have understood there was a problem with the software or the hardware yet the apparent problem was resolved when they reconciled the manual records kept by election officials and had nothing whatsoever to do with the how the voting was recorded or counted.

What you fail to point out, William, is that at the time that the returning office declared the result of the election, this substantial discrepancy existed and had not been reconciled. In paper elections, the reconciliation is normally done on the night of the election as boxes & paperwork are returned to the count centre. But with the electronic system, there was (and is) no such opportunity to do the reconciliation before the count result.

So the returning office took a gamble that he would be able to reconcile afterwards - Not exactly best practice for running an election.

williamgrogan

Wow! There is some serious twisted logic in that last point.

The eVoting result is so fast that the returning officer cannot reconcile his manually computed figures before the electronic count is over.

A TD stands up in the Dail and explains that “problem” as a fault with eVoting and a reason to distrust it.

I’m flabbergasted!

We’re entering Alice in Wonderland here.

Would you like to comment on the Green TD’s omission of some rather important facts regarding the pilot test in his speech? Would this omission not be the equivalent of a lie?

Would you stand by Eamon Gilmore’s speech that also omitted the fact that the Democratic campaign manger confirmed that the much quoted “suspect result” was fair and above board.

The anti-eVoting lobby are trying to issue blatant untrue propaganda to try and cloud the issue with the notion that there are many “missing votes” and computer problems. In this regard they are every bit as dishonest as the anti-MMR brigade. Anyone who campaigns on this basis is completely discredited in my opinion. This forum is where those committed to Science and truth hang out. Maybe this is the wrong place for the anti-eVoting lobby to be posting.

ShaneHogan

Hi William - I speak for myself, no-one else. If you have questions for Eamon Gilmore or the Greens, just give them a ring - they are very happy to discuss these issues. But you seem to have misunderstood the problem again.

The eVoting result is so fast that the returning officer cannot reconcile his manually computed figures before the electronic count is over.

The issue does not related to manually computed count results. The issue relates to the specific control procedures implemented to ensure appropriate controls over the eVoting system. In simple terms, the presiding officer at each returning station is supposed to count;

1) the number of people marked off the register
2) the number of tickets issued for eVoting
3) the number of eVotes cast

All three figures should match. They didn't. The returning officer's report shows that there were huge discrepancies (of unknown source/cause at the time the result was announced). That is a real & genuine concern.

And if you really want to blame anyone for incomplete information, turn your ire to the Dept of Environment. Why did they only release these Returning Officer reports now when they dragged out of them under FOI. If they have nothing to fear, why aren't these reports on the great Electronic Voting.ie website? And in their FOI response, why didn't they release the subsequent report from John Fitzpatrick showing his 'after-the-fact' reconciliation (of which Mr Fitzpatrick mysteriously no longer has a copy)?

williamgrogan

All three figures should match. They didn't.

This is only true if Gods are doing the counting and not humans. If a human sits at a desk for 12 hours and ticks off a name every time someone comes up to him he will make mistakes. When a person hands out thousands of ballots he too will make mistakes.

The Returning Officer said that in all his 28 years experience he has never seen an election without errors in this area. Are you suggesting that because we have introduced eVoting that the humans will now tick off the names and count the ballots they issue accurately?

The returning officer's report shows that there were huge discrepancies (of unknown source/cause at the time the result was announced).

This is an untruth.

He specifically said that the discrepancies were consistent with the manually counted constituencies. He also said that the final reconciled figures had only minor differences. He said this was the same as the manual count.

By omitting this the spin has become a lie.

It is possible that both TD’s I refer to above were misled but then the onus is on them to say this and retract their statements. If they do not then their lies stand as such.

That is a real & genuine concern.

A think a much bigger concern is that a TD would lie to the Dail.


Now lets imagine that the speeches to the Dail were told truthfully, i.e. the full truth and nothing but the truth.

Gilmore: There was an election in the US where in the days before the election the Democrats started to lose ground because of comments made by the Democratic candidates that the electorate took badly that were perceived to attack the President. As a consequence the result was a win for the Republicans. When queried about the reliability of the eVoting equipment, the campaign manager of the losing side said, “…he wished he could say that there was an error but there wasn’t and he was happy that the result was fair and honest.”

Sergeant: The Returning Office who presided over the eVoting pilot and some manual counts said that the discrepancies in both types of constituencies was the same and that the small number of errors in the manual controls were normal, that in 28 years he had never seen an election where the manual tally was correct until it was reconciled and that the eVoting was as accurate in that respect as the manual count. From his experiences in one General Election and one Referendum he had full confidence in the eVoting system as being accurate.

The above would have been the truth but when people have other agendas they often lie and distort the truth. The obvious agendas I can see at work in the background are Luddism, political opportunity, anti-business, anti-government, anti-globalisation and Open Source. There is another more complex issue which I would describe as an Ivory Tower/Academic nit picking which is far removed from reality.

The same lies & distortions that exist worldwide in this “movement” have now firmly come home to roost.

williamgrogan

PS

If you have questions for Eamon Gilmore or the Greens

Below is an email that I sent to Trevor Sergeant asking him questions that he didn’t reply to:

Dear Trevor

Why do you think there have been problems with electronic voting in the USA?

Can you give me some examples?

The VVAT system will cost millions surely we need to be sure it is necessary?

Bill

I felt that Bill might be better than William when writing to a Green.

ShaneHogan

Originally posted by williamgrogan
This is an untruth.

He specifically said that the discrepancies were consistent with the manually counted constituencies. He also said that the final reconciled figures had only minor differences. He said this was the same as the manual count.

Can you please be more specific when you accuse me of lying? Which specific bits of my statement are not truthful?

Your subsequent point "the discrepancies were consistent with the manually counted constituencies" does not in anyway contradict the factual matter of my statement. Your further point "final reconciled figures had only minor differences" is irrelevant on this particular point as I'm referring to what the Returning Officer knew at the time that he declared the result - the final reconciliation was 2-3 days later.

so the fact remains that at the time that the Dublin North result was declared on the night of the election, John Fitzpatrick had 1200-odd votes in his count, the source of which was unknown.

williamgrogan

Can you please be more specific when you accuse me of lying? Which specific bits of my statement are not truthful

Now you are wriggling.

The returning officer's report shows that there were huge discrepancies….

To say that his report showed huge discrepancies when in fact they were the same order of discrepancies as always exist in an election is a lie. The discrepancies weren’t unusual.

Again if you had said, “the returning officer’s report showed that the discrepancies were the same as all other elections he had been involved in over the previous 28 years and therefore showed no abnormality”, you would have told the truth. This is what actually happened.

…huge....
2.5%?

You are trying to indicate that there was a problem when there wasn’t. The Returning Office said specifically that there was no problem.

(of unknown source/cause at the time the result was announced).

Another lie. He did know the cause, human error. He had seen it for the previous 28 years. He said he wasn’t surprised. In fact one would expect a discrepancy and I would imagine that it would be nearly impossible in any voting system to eliminate discrepancies completely.

One can make a statement that is factual but still make it in a way and in a context that misleads people. I did not say that the 2.5% figure was incorrect or that it was a lie I said that suggesting that it was an indication of a problem with eVoting was a lie. This is what was done. This is what the lie is.

I can let those reading this to decide if your twist on the truth was acceptable or was designed to mislead people. I wonder who briefed Eamon Gilmore and much more to the point what was Eamon told? Was he led to believe that this 2.5% was abnormal? Was Eamon Gilmore himself misled?

The only possible point that you could legitimately make out of all this is that the count should not begin, for some as of yet unexplained reason, until after the manual control figures are reconciled. When a horse race finishes they announce the result but no pay out occurs until the “winner all right” statement is put out by the stewards. The same could happen in the elections. The votes counted, the winners announced and the reconciliation done afterwards and not until then the result is “official”.

The level of detail the anti-eVoting lobby are going into is similar to the anti-MMR people when they demand 100% certainly that the vaccines are safe. An impossibility. No one ever queried the old slow, laborious, inaccurate manual system like you are now querying the new system. In fact all this analysis is just showing how inaccurate the old system was, a not unusual result when a new computer system goes live and replaces a manual system. When the anti-Fluoridation people insist that no amount of Mercury is safe they use similar tactics.

Can you tell me which is more accurate the two TD’s speeches made to the Dail or my versions above?

Please don’t ask me to justify Government or Civil Service secrecy. Maybe they keep secrets because they know people will distort them?

The Skeptical View:

It's almost inevitable, when someone takes a position that is wrong they must twist whatever information comes their way and repeat anecdotal stories that when examined are lies. It’s as if they can’t help themselves. Skeptics know this from reading and debating with people who hold weird views. They give examples of instances but omit critical information that when known demolishes their arguments or else they just change tack. A seasoned skeptic wouldn’t make the mistake of repeating stories that he purposely told in a way that left out information that if known would invalidate the “evidence”. It’s like a Scientist releasing a study but leaving out any “runs” where the results didn’t agree with his theory. When the anti-eVoting web sites & the VVAT movement were set up they probably never applied the skeptic or scientific rules about telling the truth. When scientists lie their theories generally fall with them.

We are now debating some obscure reconciliation of the control figures which is not even related to the eVoting issue. The discrepancies always existed and always will if done manually.

I strongly suggest that in future the controls are done via computer and then these discrepancies will disappear.

williamgrogan

dahamsta said...

I don't think it can be secured adequately without manual recounts of a VVAT, which would defeat the entire purpose.

I agree fully. Which is why I have been saying that pro-VVAT is anti-eVoting.

Why don't you come over to my side. We agree on so much!


And I don't know what you are refering to with this sentence .... "I'll read the rest of your post when you take the time to read mine"

ShaneHogan

Hi William

Just for the record, I have had no discussion/phone/email/contact with Eamon Gilmore in relation to the returning officers report or any other eVoting matter over the last two weeks. My last contact with Eamon was in relation to the CEV submission. It's just a bit ironic that the skeptic supposedly devoted to the pure scientific facts has now slipped into innuendo & implication which have no basis in fact.

But lets get back to the main issue at hand - Did you happen to hear John Fitzpatrick being interviewed by George Hook last night? He stated quite clearly (and fair play to GH for pinning him down on what was clearly an embarrassment to him) that at the point in time when he announced the election result, he did not know the cause of the 1200-odd vote discrepancy. He made a guess that it was due to the same issues as he had seen in previous elections, but he did not know this. In fact, it took him 2-3 days of reconciliation work to satisfy himself that this was correct. And before you jump in and say that this is just like paper elections - it's not. With paper elections, they took the time to investigate & reconcile such discrepancies before the result is announced - but this time round, they didn't.

They went ahead and announced the result before the reconciliation actually started. This was the 'official' result - there is no facility in the legislation for the result to be confirmed later. The result is legally valid once it is announced by the returning officer.

And is a discrepancy of 1200-odd votes huge? Well, if you check it against the election result, you will see that just 650 votes seperate candidates 3 & 4 (elected) and candidates 5 & 6 (eliminated), in my view, an unexplained (at the time the result is announced) discrepancy of 1200-odd votes is huge.

williamgrogan

Fresh doubts have emerged over a new electronic voting system in the Irish Republic – less than two months before it is due to be used in a nationwide triple poll.

Leading critics of the system claimed today that documents made available under the terms of Irish Freedom of Information legislation showed up flaws reported by officials when e-voting was used in a trial basis in a handful of constituencies in the last Irish general election two years ago.

Push-button polling is set to be used when Ireland votes on June 11 in the European Assembly and local authority contests and in a referendum on the written Irish constitution.

Opponents of the concept maintain that votes went missing in one e-poll constituency at the last election, while too many were counted in another.

As you don’t want to stand by your colleagues maybe you will tell me if you stand by the sentence in bold above?

….he did not know the cause of the 1200-odd vote discrepancy. He made a guess that it was due to the same issues as he had seen in previous elections

His “guess”, which turned out to be correct, was based on his 28 years experience. He could have said the same at all previous counts, i.e. that until he did the reconciliation he couldn’t say for a fact what was the cause of the discrepancies in the controls.

You are still back to your only valid criticism and that is that they released the results before the reconciliation because the count was almost instantaneous. This is not the point that was made by Sergeant or on the Irish Politics web site or in the article above.

The anti-eVoting lobby deliberately put a slant on this information that would have led most people to completely misunderstand what actually happened and I will say it again, that is a lie by any definition of a lie.

There was no “huge” discrepancy. There was no discrepancy. The humans counting the number of voters by counting the crossed out names on their sheets made a mistake. The same mistake they made in every previous election. You tried to twist this non-event as evidence that eVoting is insecure. No doubt you fooled many people, but was that not your intention? The same tactics as the anti-MMR people.

GuanYin

Is it just me or has WG failed to address one single point or detail about the actual arguments made against e-voting or the details of the system in his latests posts, which seem to be based soley on attacking the opposing posters?

You haven't addressd the details highlighted by other posters or addressed their concerns, most notable ecksors query on auditing?

Incidently, MMR studies were flawed because the principle investigator was funded by those proposing the link between MMR and autism. In other words he had a vested interestin the result and withheld this information at time of publication. This does not apply to VVAT.

Secondly, in the MMR study the two children of those funding the project (who were instigating a lawsuit against MMR Vaccine companies) were part of the "random population" studied. This obviously slants the findings no matter which way you look at it. This hardly applies to VVAT either seeing as reports did not focus soley on failures of the system (even if they did, a random population study is hardly the same thing as surveying system works independantly).

PErhaps you could clarify how you link these?

ShaneHogan

Hi William - Which part of "I speak for myself, no-one else" are you having difficulty in comprehending? Let me know & I'll try and simplify it for you.

And just for your information, I am not going to engage with you on your original question on this post (anti-MMR), as it is of no relevance. You might as well compare the eVoting debate to the Roy Keane saga or the smoking ban. It is clearly just a cry for attention, not a real debate at all. But I will continue to correct the many inaccuracies and spins (ironic for one who claims to deplore spinning by others) in your posts.

I'm delighted that you have finally recognised the key concern arising from the Returning Officers report, i.e. that his legally-binding announcement of the count result was based on a guess (regarding the cause of the large discrepancy). Maybe I'm picky, but I have this strange desire for election results to be based on an accurate count - not guesses, not judgement calls, just the count - nothing more & nothing less. I would suspect that a large majority of voters would like that too.

He could have said the same at all previous counts, i.e. that until he did the reconciliation he couldn’t say for a fact what was the cause of the discrepancies in the controls.

This is an untruth - Weren't you paying attention to my earlier posts? As I stated above, at previous manual counts, the reconciliation was done before the result was announced. In fact, it was done on the night of the election, before the count actually started. So this was not the same as at all previous counts.

Your comments are based on 20/20 hindsight. At the time that those original comments were made, the returning officers follow-up statements were not in the public domain. Having gone through an FOI request for these documents and got only the original returning officer report (dated June 2002, long after the reconciliation was complete), others may have assumed that (based on the integrity of the FOI process), they had the full story. Whereas we know now that the returning officers were pushed out into the press (while Minister Cullen still stays in hiding) to defend the indefensible.

And wouldn't a card-carrying skeptic be concerned at all about the missing reconciliation report? Or does your skepticism not stretch to questioning anything out of the mouth of a public official? Where is this mysterious reconciliation report? How come Mr Fitzpatrick doesn't have a copy any more? Why wasn't it released under the original FOI request? Why does the reconciliation report dated 5th Sept 2002 (4 months after the election) still show a discrepancy of 1294 votes? Or perhaps your skepticism is more selective that you would like us to believe?

I would also like to give you one final opportunity to withdraw your allegation that I stated an 'untruth', or at least to downgrade 'untrue' to 'incomplete'. Sure - the question of whether the discrepancy of 1294 is 'huge' or not is a matter of opinion. But to label this as an untruth simply because you disagree with this opinion is unhealthy and unhelpful to the debate. I look forward to your review of this important point.

You might like to have a read of this article from today's Business Post link may not be valid after a few days - Search the archive instead

Some interesting quotes;

For anyone who still suspects that resistance to e-voting is led by an opportunistic opposition supported by a minority of Luddites and cranks, the nature of the people and organisations behind the submissions will come as a surprise.

Besides the contributions from Fine Gael, Labour, the Greens and the ICTE, many detailed submissions opposing the government's proposals come from people working in the IT industry, consultancy and academia. Several submissions come from people who have experience in running elections. They raise concerns about the proposed system on technical grounds and on the broader, related issue of retaining confidence in the voting system.

And

The Irish Computer Society submission said it was in favour of electronic voting in principle. But it argued that the Nedap Powervote system contained "a fundamental design flaw which renders it unfit for use in elections and referendums, namely that it does not incorporate any means to independently verify the results it produces."

The ICS is the national body for information and communication technology professionals in Ireland and is a nominating body for the industrial and commercial panel of the Seanad. Its electronic voting committee was unanimous that "under no circumstances whatsoever should any electronic voting system be implemented which does not include a voter-verified audit trail".

But I suppose we are all out of step except William....

williamgrogan

Which part of "I speak for myself, no-one else" are you having difficulty in comprehending? Let me know & I'll try and simplify it for you

Normally this type of comment gets a slap on the wrist??

I can only try and read something into this. Are you saying that you do not stand by the comments made by Eamon Gilmore and Trevor Sergeant? Are you distancing yourself from their statements?

Surely it was to rebut my comments on their statements that you re-appeared on this thread? I don’t think it was to argue whether or not the Returning Officer jumped the gun a bit when he announced the e-results before he reconciled the control discrepancies. Whether or not this should be done as he did it in future is a separate & relatively trivial matter.

The two statements I referred to made no mention whatsoever of “…. the key concern arising from the Returning Officers report…. was that he announced the result before he reconciled the controls.” The statements clearly insinuated that there were missing votes.

I am not going to engage with you on your original question on this post (anti-MMR), as it is of no relevance

I certainly could debate the issue as having similarities with the smoking ban, where completely illogical arguments were being made to continue a tradition known as “the craic” where a bunch of addicts wanted to continue to poison & fumigate those not addicted to their cancer causing habit. There are a lot of similarities.

A fundamental point about all Skeptical matters is that people do believe in weird things. This is the Skeptics forum and my purpose in starting this thread was to try and raise an issue where Skeptics might consider that they were being fooled in the same way as those that refuse to vaccinate their children are. There is a bigger issue here then whether we vote with pencil & paper or via computers.

You great supporters of democracy banned me from your mutual self support group so that says a lot about any high ideals being behind the anti-eVoting “movement”.

When the ICS first issued a statement supporting eVoting and the Government’s decision it was met with howls of anguish by the anti-eVoting lobby. Their obvious second kneejerk reaction was two weeks later when they swallowed lock stock and barrel the Mercuri Method before they could possibly have had time to analyse it. The ICS effectively opposed PCs as computers when they were first invented, I know I as on the ICS committee in Cork at the time. So their track record with innovation is poor.

So we are now to debate whether an untruth is a lie when there is an omission of important information or just “incomplete”. Is that not answered by the expression, “the truth, the WHOLE truth and nothing but the truth”? Do you not agree that the statements made by the two TDs were so incomplete as to be definable as lies? You can of course refuse to answer this question. You didn’t answer it when I put it to you in a previous post.

In the MMR debate those trying to scare parents from vaccinating their children told anecdotal “stories” that indicated to any normal reader that there was a connection between Autism in some children and taking the MMR. Stories such as “little Johnny was OK until the day he got his vaccination and then he started going downhill”. It turns out that little Johnny didn’t go downhill until some months later or in other cases earlier. Also those spreading these stories didn’t mention that MMR is first taken around the same time as Autism is first diagnosed. I could go on but I have been making the same point for weeks about the similar “scare stories” that the anti-eVoting lobby have been putting out. (Now I don’t know if you are distancing yourself from these as well but I am arguing with the issue and not you in particular.) Now two Irish TDs have done exactly the same thing, issued incomplete statements that they must have known would be misunderstood and that would cast suspicion on the pilot eVoting test.

So let me try again, maybe Trevor Sergeant should have said…..

Sergeant: It has been brought to my attention that the Returning Officer issued the results from the eVoting constituencies before he did his usual reconciliation and that I suggest that these results should be withheld until the reconciliation is done in future.

Now if he had said this there would have been no misunderstanding such as that which led to the piece I linked to in the Scotsman where that journalist at least understood that the problem was “missing votes”. This is all reminiscent of the 128 missing votes in Florida that turned out to be caused by the fact that there was no democratic candidate on the ballot and people simply walked out without voting.

I still maintain that to say there was a “HUGE” discrepancy when it was EXACTLY the same discrepancy that always crops up is at the very least misleading. Now is trying to mislead people the same as lying? I’ll let the philosophically trained members of the Irish Skeptics argue that one.

The article you refer to in the Sunday Business Post says, “Joe McCarthy, …. reported that 1,294 votes went missing in North Dublin, while 716 too many were counted in Dublin West”. Did they? That’s not what the Returning Officer said. He said that his CONTROLS didn’t balance, the same as they never do. When reconciled they DID balance. So no votes went missing. To say that at any time their was evidence that votes went missing, never mind to say it now that we know they didn’t, is a lie in my opinion and I am sure in the opinion of any objective unbiased person.

And here in the article is the “missing 128 votes” lie from Florida, “Many submissions refer to the US presidential election debacle in Florida and claims of irregularities [btw paper voting-WG] in the newer e-voting systems in the US, which have dented voter confidence in election results.”

What relevance has this ,” He pointed out that most computer based equipment was susceptible to eavesdropping using capture of high-frequency emissions.”, about as much as the cosmic rays changing a vote nonsense.

Finally the article was TOTALLY unbalanced and no mention whatsoever was made of any benefits from eVoting, no arguments put forward as to why VVAT was a nonsense and that any system design which incorporates what it seeks to replace is fundamentally flawed. Even the web designer of the main anti-eVoting web site said, and I agree with him, “that eVoting with VVAT is pointless”.

As regards the Sunday Business Post, I already quoted them when on the 29-02-04 Tom McGurk ran the most Luddite article on eVoting that has appeared yet.

See

http://www.thepost.ie/web/DocumentView/did-131462479-pageUrl--2FMisc-2FEzine.asp


“The actual counting process was hugely important because its ritual and its ceremonials were crafted out of the defining nature of what was being undertaken, the transference of power from people to politician”

“In rural Ireland in particular, the socialisation and the communal crossroads that these occasions created were part of the very fabric of society.The count,the tally-men,the sandwiches and the cups of tea, the whole wider theatre of the occasion was something that enhanced the importance of both the democratic system and the wider political process in the lives of these communities.

Like any human gathering for any common purpose, the partakers left nourished and invigorated.”

Maybe this is evidence that Tom McGurk was Eamonn DeValera in a previous life?

PS

Funny my mother used to use the expression, “always out of step but my Johnny”, but I did rebel against many traditions from an early age, but then again I am a Skeptic.

ecksor

Originally posted by williamgrogan
You great supporters of democracy banned me from your mutual self support group so that says a lot about any high ideals being behind the anti-eVoting “movement”.

I banned you from that forum because you refused to stick to the topic and argue the details of the system. You stated that you had no interest in e-voting as a specific issue but rather what sort of mentality opposed it. You continually commented upon the motives of the people who opposed it rather than arguing the facts and details (which you freely admitted you weren't aware of and weren't particularly interested in). I was not going to allow you drag that forum into a muddle of crap as you've been allowed to do here. I suspect that your particular brand of 'discussion' wouldn't last long on the Politics forum either.

This is another example of you holding people to account for the actions of others. Since ShaneHogan is the one person I recall who objected to your banning from that forum, I think it is rather unfair of you to try to use it in your argument against him. As has been pointed out to you before, if you wish a public discussion of that particular banning then you may bring it up on the Feedback / Suggestions forum.

That would be another point on which he's quite entitled to ask the question that you claim should get him a slap on the wrists.

I am a Skeptic.

Not long ago you claimed that you didn't call yourself a skeptic.

GuanYin

At any pointin this rather long-winded and rambling debate will WG be forced to actually address the details and points of MMR and VVAT themselves and show us his alleged anaolgies in the two, rather than just trying to discredit people he sees as associated?

dahamsta

Originally posted by syke
At any pointin this rather long-winded and rambling debate will WG be forced to actually address the details and points of MMR and VVAT themselves and show us his alleged anaolgies in the two, rather than just trying to discredit people he sees as associated?

Discredit, lie and misrepresent.

williamgrogan

Not long ago you claimed that you didn't call yourself a skeptic

Either I didn't or you are mis-quoting. Please point to where I said this.

williamgrogan

ShaneHogan is the one person I recall who objected to your banning from that forum

You are correct I think he did.

You cannot justify banning someone on a forum for spurious reasons. You banned me, or so you said, for calling those opposing eVoting, Luddites. I still think, and I am entitled to my opinion, that that is the main problem. I think a forum that argues the high values of democracy should be very careful about banning someone and especially not because they previously asked the moderator in another thread to stop blubbering. I realise that comment was badly taken by you.

You see banning free speech AND claiming high ideals smells of hypocrisy.

williamgrogan

Discredit, lie and misrepresent

Obviously I am entitled to discredit someone who puts forward “evidence” that is untruthful. Someone who does this cannot, unless they withdraw the lie, be taken seriously in future.

This is why Wakefield’s study is now discredited. He lied by omission. He left out information that is regarded as crucial and therefore his study was undermined. He didn’t strictly speaking tell a lie but he did lie by omission.

When the anti-eVoting people keep putting about anecdotal evidence that upon investigation turns out to be untruthful then they too are discredited.

Can you refer me to where I lied?

Misrepresent?

I might add your one liner adds little in terms of addressing the points I have been making for the last few days. They are nothing but silly insults.

ecksor

Originally posted by williamgrogan
Either I didn't or you are mis-quoting. Please point to where I said this.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1277193#post1277193

williamgrogan

At any pointin this rather long-winded and rambling debate will WG be forced to actually address the details and points of MMR and VVAT themselves and show us his alleged anaolgies in the two, rather than just trying to discredit people he sees as associated?

This thread is taking a funny turn.

I make serious accusations that certain statements are effectively lies and at the very least gross distortions of the truth. I have specifically asked whether or not those of you opposing eVoting stand by them and not one of you has addressed this point.

Syke, do you think either Gilmore or Sergeant were truthful in their statements?

Do you Shane?

This is an important point. It is central to my contention that anti-MMR people lie by putting forward anecdotal stories that upon examination are seen to be lies and so do the anti-eVoting groups and individuals. It is essential to the anti-eVoting groups that they obtain evidence that eVoting is unreliable. There have now been millions of votes cast via eVoting. No evidence yet of any major problems. Plenty of stories doing the rounds that are lies though.

ecksor

Originally posted by williamgrogan
You cannot justify banning someone on a forum for spurious reasons.

If you feel they are spurious then again I say you should discuss it on the Feedback / Suggestions forum.

You banned me, or so you said, for calling those opposing eVoting, Luddites. I still think, and I am entitled to my opinion, that that is the main problem.

You are entitled to your opinion. You were even allowed to express it. You were warned not to keep spamming the discussion with that repeated assertion since you weren't arguing your case for that opinion and confessions about your ignorance of the system under discussion lead me to believe that you weren't in a position to back up your assertions. Therefore I concluded that you were merely being a disruption.

I think a forum that argues the high values of democracy should be very careful about banning someone

Have I argued about the high ideals of democracy? As far as I recall I've been arguing the suitability of the system for its intended purpose (and mentioned democracy where this has been relevant to that suitability). My political beliefs are not the topic for discussion.

and especially not because they previously asked the moderator in another thread to stop blubbering. I realise that comment was badly taken by you.

That comment reflects upon you, not me. Again, if you have a complaint about partial moderation then you should take it to the Feedback / Suggestions forum.

You see banning free speech AND claiming high ideals smells of hypocrisy.

Every forum on this site is subject to moderation. Your definitions of free speech aside, I don't recall claiming high ideals and they are not relevant to the requirement of a VVAT in the e-voting system.

ecksor

Originally posted by williamgrogan
It is essential to the anti-eVoting groups that they obtain evidence that eVoting is unreliable. There have now been millions of votes cast via eVoting. No evidence yet of any major problems.

And you appear to be opposed to a method which would help to provide such evidence.

williamgrogan

The reason I call myself a Skeptic (I don’t really but lets simplify things) is because the various Skeptics associations seem to have similar positions on matters that I have.

Sorry to bore everyone with this but……….

I was answering a point where someone said, “…you call yourself a Skeptic”. The word “really” also contributes to the sentence. The “really” relates to the bit below.

I don’t “call myself” anything. I don’t “call myself” an Atheist, even though I am an Atheist. In fact I am quite adamant about that.

I clearly say that I am “of one” with Skeptics in the above sentence. I am a Skeptic but I don’t “call myself” a Skeptic. If you said to me “what are you”, I won’t say I’m a Skeptic (at least generally not). In fact when asked that question I generally say, “I’m a human”.

PS

I’m impressed with that show of memory and I do accept the sentence is ambiguous. I hope that clarifies the matter.

ecksor

That does clarify.

I'm reminded of Through the Looking Glass

"The name of the song is called 'Haddocks' Eyes.'"
"Oh, that's the name of the song, is it?" Alice said trying to feel interested.

"No, you don't understand," the Knight said, looking a little vexed.
"That's what the name is called. The name really is 'The Aged Aged Man.'"
"Then I ought to have said 'That's what the song is called'?" Alice corrected herself.

"No, you oughtn't: that's quite another thing! The song is called 'Ways and Means': but that's only what it's called, you know!"
"Well, what is the song, then?" said Alice, who was by this time completely bewildered.

"I was coming to that," the Knight said. "The song really is 'A-sitting on A Gate': and the tune's my own invention."

ShaneHogan

Hi William - Thanks for clarifying that when accusing me of an untruth, you were actually referring to an incomplete statement and a difference of opinion over what 'huge' means in this context.

OK - Let me try a third time on the point that you don't seem to get - I speak for myself, no-one else. I'm not going to engage with you on anything Eamon G or the Greens or the Pope or Osama said on this topic. I'm not going to engage with you as to whether anti-Evoting people are same as anti-MMR's or anti-smokers or anti-roy keane or my Aunty Noreen. I'm choosing not to engage with you on these points for the sole reason that I don't like your style - I find it to be aggressive, bullying, inconsistent, trolling, vague - well, I could go on, but life is too short. Any other conclusion that you come to regarding my reasons for not commenting on these matters (as even an apprentice skeptic could tell you) is completely unsupported by any data, i.e. it is a figment of your overactive imagination.

If you expect anyone to take your assertion about PC's and the ICS seriously, you will need to produce something a bit stronger than 'I was on the committee at the time'. I too was active in the ICS around those times and I don't recall any policy which resisted PC's.

You are again choosing to ignore the fact that the details of the returning officer's late reconciliation had not emerged at the time that the statements in question were made. You are operating with 20/20 hindsight - you are not looking at the snapshot of information that was in the public domain at the time that those statements were made.

Your ability to ignore the bits of the evidence that don't suit you would embarrass any real skeptic.

Regards - Shane

williamgrogan

Sir, the fact that you have dragged your Aunty Noreen into this proves you are a cad!

Sorry, I have to go to bed, I operate on French time.

Will respond to the Alice in Wonderland contribution. It is probably the first sensible thing E. has said in months.

PS

Are you in favour of E. Gilmore being thrown out of the Labour Party then?

Victor

Originally posted by williamgrogan
It is essential to the anti-eVoting groups that they obtain evidence that eVoting is unreliable.

Ah, at last a substantial accusation.

If, by your own admission "anti-eVoting" = "pro-VVAT". I think I can honestly say that no pro-VVAT person I have come across *wants* to find errors - they want to be comprehensively reassured that there are no errors.

In my work, in construction, I have dealt with projects of up to about €55m, this sum typically made up of hundreds, if not thousands of individual calculations. To have a paper trail is almost essential, an audit trail is essential (try using a lap-top on the roof of a seven storey building on a rainy, blustery day, complete with spatters of plaster).

Construction is an adversarial business, quite simply because (a) there is a lot of money involved (b) it is legally and technically complicated (c) it draws from many disciplines. These lend themselves to errors occurring and to the parties (i) seeking recompense (ii) exploiting errors.

Now 30-40 years ago a quantity surveyor would have half his staff involved in merely adding, subtracting, multiplying, etc. vast numbers of, well, numbers. Today it's a much leaner operation, centred largely on computers, but not capable of completely escaping paper. My experience over the last ten years is that computers sometimes make errors, but more often that people make errors - they mistype, they misread, they presume and so on. But also, with earlier Pentium computers, you would get things like (I'm not sure if this is actually one) 86*37=3182.000000000001 a little bit like the error one gets from log tables an slide rules where apparently 2*2=4 and a bit.

Some of the time, there are corruptions in transferring from one format to another (e.g. word processor to spreadsheet, where a number might end up as text and while "included" in a total actually isn't)

All this has taught me to be cautious (not necessarily as far as wary) of computers. Is the computer doing what I intended it to do or just what I told it to do? Are all factors accounted for? Is what I intended it to do complete or am I making a fundamental mathematical (as opposed to arithmetic) error?

No, with regard to eVoting, I have yet to be reassured by its sponsors. Yes, they say they have done various tests on various parts. Yes, they have carried out various trials. Yes, no doubt they employ competent people to carry out their work. And this *mostly* reassures me.

However, as the sponsor of the project, the Minister is in the compromised position, much like the doctor in the MMR research case, of wearing two hats at the same time – sponsor of the project and Director of Elections for FF (FF being a party that has proven again and again, that it will abuse trust). That the Lord Mayor was dropped from the stage at the official opening for voicing doubts shows the manner in which the project is being run: “Close Ranks”. That the Minister had to hold a closed press conference and exclude his critics is well questionable in a democracy. Would it perhaps be, as he admitted to the photographers that day be because he himself is computer illiterate?

It is possible that eVoting will benefit FF marginally over other parties, based on anecdotal evidence of a small minority of FF votes inadvertently spoiling their votes. In that case I would welcome eVoting (assuming it won't introduce new methods of exclusion).

Now, the project was developed in a non-transparent manner (as unfortunately are many things in this country), but more than that, it took extreme measures for people to get information out of the Department - information that should have been routinely available. Now, my experience in life has been that if it takes extreme measures to get information from someone, then that someone has *something* to hide.

Further, there is an almost hysterical rejection of VVAT. Now what is there to be hysterical about? Surely the voting process is a relatively straightforward unemotional matter. It’s not like setting off young couple looking for a tax break to buy a house against health care for the elderly, is it? Or do we or don’t we cooperate with the Americans in Iraq? It is a straightforward technical process. All I want is a simple, straightforward explanation of how the system works, what its advantages are, what its weaknesses are, etc. Is this available to me? No. Instead we have a minister who reverts to bluster and name-calling*, again the reserve of a bully and / or someone with something to hide.

Finally, there is an apparently headlong rush into the change over. Now with any major project, one allows time for adequate study, review, comment, etc., to have a reserve, margin, contingencies, built-in redundancy and time to rectify mistakes and most importantly the ability to stand above the project and to say, “No this isn’t good enough”. Now in my experience in construction, I realise that many people** try to push the margins, not by taking a solid base of experience and expanding incrementally, but by excessive experimenting and reinventing the wheel, revolution instead of evolution. All to often it results in heartbreak, delays, cost over-runs, acrimony and an unhappy client. The eVoting project would appear to have too many of those features for me to be comfortable with. Instead, 6 weeks before the nationwide rollout of the project we are buying more machines at it would appear, to be a large multiple of the contract price.

All of the above make me extremely hesitant to put the “Victor stamp of approval” on the current implementation. VVAT would probably make me give that stamp.

* Ironic for the proponents of the project to accuse people of being luddites when their official website has no e-mail contact, they need people to remind them to update their website, they appear not to understand the Gregorian calendar and can’t spell-check or use a map.

** Take this to read that many construction designers are incompetent muppets (aside from being innumerate and dyslexic) out for glory in something that “looks nice” instead of something that works.[size]