Why I'm not voting FF

mhaire_s

<rant>

I'm a professional computer programmer. I usually vote FF. But not this time. For the first time in my life I'm going to vote for the blue shirts. I can't believe I just said that.

It was that eVoting fiasco that did it. That *so* annoyed me. The architecture was totally wrong. I nearly cried it was that bad. We are the second largest software producers in the world and we come up with that crap. Jesus!

Surely we could of done better, a lot *better* than a unreadable, proprietary system lacking even a decent VVAT. Jesus, not even a decent parity check!

Therfore, I am not voting FF.

<end rant>

stepbar

mhaire_s wrote:

<rant>

I'm a professional computer programmer. I usually vote FF. But not this time. For the first time in my life I'm going to vote for the blue shirts. I can't believe I just said that.

It was that eVoting fiasco that did it. That *so* annoyed me. The architecture was totally wrong. I nearly cried it was that bad. We are the second largest software producers in the world and we come up with that crap. Jesus!

Surely we could of done better, a lot *better* than a unreadable, proprietary system lacking even a decent VVAT. Jesus, not even a decent parity check!

Therfore, I am not voting FF.

<end rant>

Is that the ONLY reason? <Support FG BTW>

brianthebard

Its as good a reason as any. Like an archeologist saying they won't vote for them because of the Tara motorway fiasco. Or a nurse not voting for them, cause....

mhaire_s

stepbar wrote:

Is that the ONLY reason? <Support FG BTW>

I am passionate about what I do. I care. This is all the reason I need. We are so much more better that this. This is all I have to say.

stepbar

mhaire_s wrote:

I am passionate about what I do. I care. This is all the reason I need. We are so much more better that this. This is all I have to say.

Fair enough in a former life I was a computer programmer of sorts. Now im in the other evil, Banking.....

If only the e-voting was the end of it.......

cm2000

as a computer programmer you should vote fianna fail. fianna fail see the science/computing/engineering sectors as the forefronts of a good and sustainable economy. in 1997 Pat Rabbit had responsibility for reasearch and development. the dept of education and science had a budget for r and d of £0000000. since then our domestic research and development has increased immesurably. this innovation will probably secure you a job in years to come when we can't rely so heavily on foreign industry.

gandalf

If the e-voting fiasco was the end of it eh, don't forget the mess that is our communications infrastructure all done during this governments tenure.

stepbar

cm2000 wrote:

as a computer programmer you should vote fianna fail. fianna fail see the science/computing/engineering sectors as the forefronts of a good and sustainable economy. in 1997 Pat Rabbit had responsibility for reasearch and development. the dept of education and science had a budget for r and d of £0000000. since then our domestic research and development has increased immesurably. this innovation will probably secure you a job in years to come when we can't rely so heavily on foreign industry.

Is it you Bertie? Have you invaded boards as well?

cm2000

nnnno of cccourse not

gandalf

Actually this months Village magazine has an interesting article that lists the top 20 of broken government promises.

Here is a quick list of them. Check the mag out for the backgrounds.

Improve A&E Services - Broken
Permanently end hospital waiting lists by the end of 2004 - Broken
Deal with capacity issues at Dublin Airport building a new pier by 2003 - broken
Metro Line to Dublin Airport by 2007 - Broken
Implement the National Roads programme by 2006 - Broken
All Schools will attain modern standards by 2007 - Broken
Reduce Class Sizes for Children under 9 in Five years - Broken
Garda Numbers - Increase Garda Numbers by 2000 - Broken
Expand Social Housing to meet the housing needs of 15000 per annum - Broken
Tax, ensure 80 per cent of all taxpayers pay the lower rate within 5 years - Broken
Reduce persistant poverty below 2% - Broken
Promise to increase overseas aid to 0.7% of GNP by 2007 (Made at the UN by Bertie) - Broken
Promise to review ethics in Public Office measures and where necessary improve them - No surprise this one was Broken
Introduce a proceeds of corruption act - Broken
Elimate any potential financial influence on decision making process and to prevent corruption - Broken
Allow people access to publically held information under the Freedom of Information act - Broken
Make sure that discharges of untreated sewage from cities and towns will cease by 2003 - The people of Galway definately know this one was Broken.

wow sierra

I reckon the opposition to the evoting had more to do with missing the fun of the count than anything else. Having worked on the count the last time it is amazing looking at the transfers and where they go etc. The buzz around the count centre is great.

I have to say I do feel sorry for all the people who spoil their votes by mistake - that didn't seem possible to do with the evoting machine. There are lots of people who put x beside the three candidates they want to win the three seats with no numbers, ticks beside the names and not in the boxes, put in preference 1 and then skip to 3,4,5 etc etc . Just be careful people. And before ye all get superior about it - I have seen the evidence, it only takes a few votes to win some seats. I think the transfer of the surplus votes would have been fairer also under the evoting system.

Voipjunkie

gandalf wrote:

Actually this months Village magazine has an interesting article that lists the top 20 of broken government promises.

Here is a quick list of them. Check the mag out for the backgrounds.

Improve A&E Services - Broken
Permanently end hospital waiting lists by the end of 2004 - Broken
Deal with capacity issues at Dublin Airport building a new pier by 2003 - broken
Metro Line to Dublin Airport by 2007 - Broken
Implement the National Roads programme by 2006 - Broken
All Schools will attain modern standards by 2007 - Broken
Reduce Class Sizes for Children under 9 in Five years - Broken
Garda Numbers - Increase Garda Numbers by 2000 - Broken
Expand Social Housing to meet the housing needs of 15000 per annum - Broken
Tax, ensure 80 per cent of all taxpayers pay the lower rate within 5 years - Broken
Reduce persistant poverty below 2% - Broken
Promise to increase overseas aid to 0.7% of GNP by 2007 (Made at the UN by Bertie) - Broken
Promise to review ethics in Public Office measures and where necessary improve them - No surprise this one was Broken
Introduce a proceeds of corruption act - Broken
Elimate any potential financial influence on decision making process and to prevent corruption - Broken
Allow people access to publically held information under the Freedom of Information act - Broken
Make sure that discharges of untreated sewage from cities and towns will cease by 2003 - The people of Galway definately know this one was Broken.

That is enough

I wonder how many of these are from the 1997 election nevermind the 2002 one alot done more to do my arse.

Judt

Screw ups of things we're supposed to be good at is what we're, well, good at.

brianthebard

gandalf wrote:

Lots of broken promises.

Ok most of them I know didn't happen, but what's wrong with the FoIA? what does it not allow you to look at?

Voipjunkie

brianthebard wrote:

Ok most of them I know didn't happen, but what's wrong with the FoIA? what does it not allow you to look at?

http://www.iccl.ie/DB_Data/publications/ICCLSubmissiontotheJointOireachtasCommitteeonFinanceand.pdf

• Freedom of Information is a basic democratic right of the people to have information about decisions affecting their lives, and amendments to the FOI Act inevitably affect the rights of citizens. The main recommendations in the report will have a negative and detrimental impact on the rights of citizens, and to suggest that amendments based on the report do not change the rights of ordinary citizens is misleading. • The Report of the High Level Review Group represents the views only of the senior civil servants tasked by the Government. As the report was not based on any consultation with the Information Commissioner, any independent experts, any citizen or public stakeholders, it does not reflect any inclusive, considered or balanced review of how the FOI Act may be improved to the benefit of all. To enact legislation based on the report without further consultation and input from the many stakeholders affected would be contrary to the principles of participatory democracy. • The ICCL welcomes the detailed and considered commentary of the Information Commissioner on the Report and its implications on legislative change, and demands that full consideration be given to his report before any further steps are taken to amend the FOI Act. • The ICCL notes that the HLRG contains many assertions as to the problems with the FOI Act, but provides no examples of how this has happened, or provided no empirical examples of how the current system has damaged the effectiveness of government. The ICCL opposes restrictions on the right to information in the absence of clear and justifiable evidence that there is harm being caused to the functioning of government, or to individuals by the operation of the Act. • The ICCL strongly opposes the approach of the report to seek greater categories of exemptions to the FOI Act. The ICCL believes that a human rights compliant, and a pro freedom of information approach, is to start with the assumption that access to information should be permitted and then to identify specific harms to an individual or to the public good and interest which would result form disclosure of the content of a particular document. • The recommendation to change the discretion of a Head of Department to refuse access to Cabinet records, to a mandatory refusal of access completely reverses the presumption in favour of access to documents. The creation of a regime where there is automatic refusal of a request
with no regard to the type of record sought, no regard as to whether the information may already be in the public sphere, no regard to the public interest in having access to the record, or any harm caused by its release flies in the face of a culture of transparency and accountability. • The recommendation to widen the type of record which could be automatically refused from records solely for the purpose of the transaction of Government business to records primarily for that purpose will again remove a category of documents out of the reach of citizens, without regard to the merits of the request. The interpretation that a record was created primarily for the purpose Government business can be used widely to exclude access to documents which are used for purposes other than Government meetings but may at some stage have been used in a government meeting. • The imposition of fees beyond those of the costs has direct negative implications specifically for non-commercial users of the FOI Act - that is individual citizens and non-profit organisations that may represent the interests of citizens. Where charges for expenses incurred are permitted, and indeed significant fees are often charged for requests, the imposition of an additional fee for a request requires further justification. The HLRG makes clear that the recommendation to introduce a fee is indeed in part to have a deterrent effect. The ICCL believes that using costs as a deterrent factor is inappropriate, when there is the power to refuse frivolous and vexatious requests. INTRODUCTION The Irish Council for Civil Liberties (An Chomhairle um Chearta Daonna) is an independent non-governmental organisation that works to promote and defend human rights and civil liberties. It was founded in 1976 by, among others, Mary Robinson, Kader Asmal and Donal Barrington. ICCL was the first body to campaign for freedom of information (hereinafter "FOI") legislation in Ireland as far back as 1978 and was involved in consultations with Government leading up to the enactment of the Freedom of Information Act 1997. During that campaign the ICCL together with the Let in the Light Campaign set out a number of core principles which should form the heart of FOI legislation. Those principles included: • A general presumption in favour of access to documents must lie at the heart of the legislation. • Fees, if any, charged for access to documents must be set at a modest level, particularly in relation to requests for access to personal files, where they should be nominal. • Exemptions from access to documents must be drafted as precisely as possible, particularly in the area of policy advice. • Access may only be refused where there is a demonstrable, clear and present danger to acquired specified interests, the protection of which might reasonably be regarded as necessary for the maintenance of a democratic society, or necessary to the reasonable right to privacy of individual citizens. Where the disclosure of a document might threaten the public or an individual's interests, as defined above, it should still be disclosed if the information which threatens these interests can be 'blacked out' or otherwise withheld. • Detriment to the reputation of an elected official, of a department of government or of a political party interest is not a ground for refusal.

Sonnenblumen

mhaire_s wrote:

<rant>

I'm a professional computer programmer. I usually vote FF. But not this time. For the first time in my life I'm going to vote for the blue shirts. I can't believe I just said that.

It was that eVoting fiasco that did it. That *so* annoyed me. The architecture was totally wrong. I nearly cried it was that bad. We are the second largest software producers in the world and we come up with that crap. Jesus!

Surely we could of done better, a lot *better* than a unreadable, proprietary system lacking even a decent VVAT. Jesus, not even a decent parity check!

Therfore, I am not voting FF.


<end rant>

Ireland doesn't produce that much software and you should know it, most of the output is a few global giants doing some localisation essentially tweaking and mostly translating. IDA fluff speak goe son about it, a bit like the way they use to talk about Call Centres being ICT centres of excellence etc whereas everyone now knows such centres have more in common with Fast food outlets.

Anyway your entitled to your opinion.. I do agree the whole evoting is a fiasco, but it does say so much more about the Irish state than a particular political entity. Bottom line money squandered.

Personally I look forward to see BIFFO Parlon get a big root up the hole and be banished to some distant farmyard.

Dalfiatach

I'm a programmer, traditional FF voter, and it was e-voting did it for me too. That was, IMO, something very close to an attempted coup.

We paid 10 times the list price for a collection of broken machines running bloody Access databases on Windows 98, possibly the least secure architecture in the known Universe. They failed every test, they couldn't count the votes properly, the one time they were used in an election 1200 votes "mysteriously vanished", the government asked Nedap to further break the already broken code by getting them to put back in the flawed "random sample" method of transfer distribution, thus removing any justification for the damn things "that counts would be more accurate"....they refused to listen to everyone that told them the system as specified simply wasn't good enough...they're still blustering that the machines are just fine....

Once e-voting broke the old traditional FF blindfold, I started to see more and more wrong with just about everything this hopeless government have bumbled, wasted, lied and cheated their way through for an entire decade.

But yeah, it was e-voting that was the old proverbial straw that broke my back. I'm not exactly happy about it, but I'll be voting Green and transferring to the Blueshirts this time out.

Rock Climber

Voipjunkie wrote:

I wonder how many of these are from the 1997 election nevermind the 2002 one alot done more to do my arse.

I find that funny because it ignores the difference between an election manifesto and a programme for government.
It's the latter that you have to examine the record on.
Sure enough theres a lot of stuff not done but not as much as in the manifesto.

To be fair you'd have to look at the various FG and labour manifesto's and see what those two parties are individually in favour of and compare with their compromised "alliance for change " programme.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

gandalf

I'd assume he's spouting party mantra myself, I notice he didn't say anything about the 35 million poured down the drain on Berties Pet Project #3 Media Labs, then again we don't like to mention those around here

thebman

There is very little reason for anyone with an education in IT to vote Fianna Fail IMO as they have completely failed the industry/sector with lack of broadband, lack of university graduates, e-voting.

All this when they claim we are building a knowledge economy. That's their plan then they have no plan as they have made no effort to promote a knowledge based economy so its just a buzz word for the election. They'll get the IDA to throw money at research companies, that's the way they think we will get a knowledge based economy.

Why would you locate anything in a country with the second highest line rental charge in the world and the second worst communications infastructure in Europe.

layke

I was as student when FF decided to screw the younger generation over to get their OAP votes.

Payback time, oh yes.

AndrewMc

cm2000 wrote:

as a computer programmer you should vote fianna fail.

Fianna Fáil had the presidency of the EU sponsored by Microsoft, and then by some huge coincidence tried to shoe-horn the software patents directive in right at the end of the 6 months. Fortunately it was overturned in the EU following a huge effort, but that (combined with e-voting and the never-ending broadband mess) truly indicates how little of a clue they have about these issues.

LostinBlanch

Dalfiatach wrote:

I'm a programmer, traditional FF voter, and it was e-voting did it for me too. That was, IMO, something very close to an attempted coup.

That's what I thought at the time too! It looked like they were trying to do the same as the Republicans were doing in the US.

jmayo

The Celtic Tiger died back in 2001.
What we have had since is the "Developers Kitty".
And yet you get eejits trotting out with the mantra that we are and will be a knowledge based economy and our future lies in high end service jobs, whatever the hell they are?
Meanwhile the likes of Motorola goes, Creative downsize, etc etc.

Regarding the e-voting, sure it could be worse we could have used PPARS software and design techniques.
Then imagine the election results, Bertie wins after getting 110% of the 4,200,500 votes cast in Dublin North Central ballot.

Of course Bertie knows nothing about it, you need to ask Celia or someone in Manchester maybe. Besides half of those people he never remebers meeting, the other third were his friends who will all get jobs in semi-states and the final fourth were only there to pay his stamp duty on something he doesn't yet own but one of his friends might buy sometime.

Now you can understand why e-voting never worked, the spec for the vote calcalations was all over the place. One part of the code was not allowed transfer informatin to another for fear somebody might follow a trail that might or might not lead to a conclusion and anyway it is none of anyones business because it concerns Bertie.

And don't get me started on the availability of broadband throughout this fine land.

McSandwich

Maybe the voting machines are good for something after all :rolleyes:

http://www.engadget.com/2006/10/06/dutch-voting-machines-hacked-to-play-chess/

http://www.rte.ie/news/2006/1005/voting.html

Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo must be sh*tting themselves.

Macy

wow sierra wrote:

I think the transfer of the surplus votes would have been fairer also under the evoting system.

But it didn't - it still went with a random selection rather than calculating it proportionally. imo this was a deliberate tatic to make it impossible for any hard copy backup, check and recount to be effective.

Dalfiatach

Macy wrote:

But it didn't - it still went with a random selection rather than calculating it proportionally. imo this was a deliberate tatic to make it impossible for any hard copy backup, check and recount to be effective.

*lightbulb*

Jaysus, yer not wrong there. I'd originally put it down to simple incompetence, but this is just as, if not more, likely.

The whole e-voting thing just gets more and more dodgy and more and more sinister the more we know, and the more you think about it.

I can't see FF getting many votes from the sci/tech/engineering sectors at all after e-voting, MediaLabs, broadband and a host of other technical f***-ups of the highest order. Knowledge Economy me arse. But all the inbred drooling morons out there will swallow that sh1te no problem :mad:

thebman

Of course e-voting is about rigging elections. It is in almost every country its been implemented. There is no safe way to do e-voting if you don't have some kind of paper trail as everything is hackable. You could make it very difficult though but FF didn't even try to get proper systems.

e-voting has more holes than the titanic. That's why politicians love it.

Victor Meldrew

Just do it as payback for the sleaze. e-voting is an embarrasment, but there have been worse things done by this fgovernment and in particular, by bertie. I'm praying that we can show FF that we are not thick idiots and that we see through Bertie, Dick roche, Martin Cullen and the rest of them.

but then you get the government you deserve.:(

Victor Meldrew

brim4brim wrote:

Of course e-voting is about rigging elections. It is in almost every country its been implemented. There is no safe way to do e-voting if you don't have some kind of paper trail as everything is hackable. You could make it very difficult though but FF didn't even try to get proper systems.

e-voting has more holes than the titanic. That's why politicians love it.

Our votes may take ages to count, and do make for great TV, but it is honest and transparent, and you cannot put a price on that..