Martin Cullen...how is he still in a job?

Mr.Micro

DO0GLE wrote: »

Very simple....he has pumped BILLIONS into his own constitunency so Waterford people keep voting him back in.

http://www.martincullen.ie/index.php?page=transforming-waterford

Money talks ,the independents ( not really as they have been bought by FF)like Healy Rae have been promised thousands for their constituencies ,our money to pay for their vote to keep FF in power.

mikemac

Michael Lowry does the same for Tipperary North.
Yes he's a crook but he's our crook

Mr.Micro

micmclo wrote: »

Michael Lowry does the same for Tipperary North.
Yes he's a crook but he's our crook

You are welcome to him .

Mick86

Victor wrote: »

No, incompetence and malpractice exposed by boardsies, among others. http://boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=425

Yeah right. TDs read boards all the time.

E voting was a perfectly logical and workable idea that had kibosh put on it by the opposition for PR purposes.

Trotter

DO0GLE wrote: »

Very simple....he has pumped BILLIONS into his own constitunency so Waterford people keep voting him back in.

http://www.martincullen.ie/index.php?page=transforming-waterford

Billions my eye.. The place was derelict up to 10 years ago. It was / is impossible to drive to the city from Dublin without needing new underpants. Theres a hemorrhage of jobs in the city with hundreds of people losing their livelihood from manufacturing jobs. The government spends a few bob on bypassing the city altogether and all we hear is the billions being spent on Waterford. Rubbish.

Look at that list again and tick off the ones that actually have been done or exist right now. More than half are future aspirations.

mike65

Whatsmore those cretins in Kilkenny and Carlow are benefiting. And we still don't have a university, so he ain't done that well.

Mike.

jmayo

Mick86 wrote: »

Yeah right. TDs read boards all the time.

E voting was a perfectly logical and workable idea that had kibosh put on it by the opposition for PR purposes.

Please tell me you are kidding :eek:
Yes in theory it is a very logical idea but as most poeple with an iota of technical knowledge would know the system was a crock ith too many holes.
Non FFers in Ireland, like voters in most democracies, like to be able to verify the results with hard evidence or else we might get one of Zimbabwe or Iraq's famous electoral results.
Bertie bafoon and Biffo elected with 98% of the vote would have a good sound to it for the soldiers of destiny grassroots wouldn't it now :rolleyes:

No wonder Tipperary re-elect a tax defaulter.

mike65 wrote: »

Whatsmore those cretins in Kilkenny and Carlow are benefiting. And we still don't have a university, so he ain't done that well.

Mike.

why the christ should you have a university ?
You have what used to be called an RTC, then it was relabelled an Institute of Technology because it sounded better.
Does WIT warrant the status of university, does it offer the range of courses other universities offer ?
Or should we downgrade the standards for all universities so that Waterford can boast they have a university?

This is the usaul claptrap that every town should have an airport, university, hospital, government department, etc, etc.
It is also the reason that any gombeen that gets something for his local area, no matter how much he screws the rest of the nation, is guaranteed of been reelected no matter if they are crooks, apologists for rapists, tax defaulters, liars, theives.
Sadly some people in my own county re-elect one of the above.

Mr.Micro

jmayo wrote: »

Please tell me you are kidding :eek



why the christ should you have a university ?
You have what used to be called an RTC, then it was relabelled an Institute of Technology because it sounded better.QUOTE JMAYO

Waterford IT is not up to scratch or even near it to be University ,nor is Carlow .They just dont have the quality let alone the staff quality or courses.IT colleges are stuck in that mid 70 s and 80 s nostalgia .Naff.

Mr.Micro

Mick86 wrote: »

Yeah right. TDs read boards all the time.

E voting was a perfectly logical and workable idea that had kibosh put on it by the opposition for PR purposes.

NO .any electronic machine can be got at by experts and manipulated and no politician can be trusted .Sell them to Musharraf he might have use for them.

Mick86

jmayo wrote: »

Yes in theory it is a very logical idea but as most poeple with an iota of technical knowledge would know the system was a crock ith too many holes.

We regularly use credit cards and do our banking online. Yet we raise a big hullabaloo over voting online.

jmayo wrote: »

No wonder Tipperary re-elect a tax defaulter.

Tipperary is split into two constituencies. My friends in the North Riding assure me that they have voted and will continue to vote for Michael Lowry because whatever you want he can get for you.

Boggle

We regularly use credit cards and do our banking online. Yet we raise a big hullabaloo over voting online.

Completely different. You know when someone uses your credit card or online banking illegally - it shows up in the statement so there are automatic checks and balances which are rigorously monitored by the consumer.

How exactly do you propose to monitor voting? After all, and despite it being detectable, fraud does and will continue on credit cards....

Mr.Micro

Boggle wrote: »

Completely different. You know when someone uses your credit card or online banking illegally - it shows up in the statement so there are automatic checks and balances which are rigorously monitored by the consumer.

How exactly do you propose to monitor voting? After all, and despite it being detectable, fraud does and will continue on credit cards....

Absolutley true ,once your vote is cast there is nothing more you can do ,it is then the property of the machine and its operators.There is no checks or balances just the word of politicians that its grand.If your online banking goes wrong one would soon know and can sort it.

jmayo

Mick86 wrote: »

We regularly use credit cards and do our banking online. Yet we raise a big hullabaloo over voting online.

With bank/credit cards as mentioned by other posters the user and the provider can check statements and have a transaction trail that can be used to ascertain what happened and conduct audits.
AFAIK there is no way with the current electronic election system to completly verify that the arrived at result was/is correct.
Can you track an actual ballot or break down the ballots from each machine ?
The least the system should be able to do is verify it's conclusions and be tamper proof.

Mick86 wrote: »

Tipperary is split into two constituencies. My friends in the North Riding assure me that they have voted and will continue to vote for Michael Lowry because whatever you want he can get for you.

I won't mention mobile phones :rolleyes:

Mr.Micro

If people continue to knowingly vote in tainted politicians ,tax dodgers ,tax defaulters ,brown envelope takers etc it is no surprise then that we end up with incompetent TD s who have agendas of their own.How could these people be trusted with electronic voting machines ?

Mick86

Boggle wrote: »

Completely different. You know when someone uses your credit card or online banking illegally - it shows up in the statement so there are automatic checks and balances which are rigorously monitored by the consumer.

How exactly do you propose to monitor voting? After all, and despite it being detectable, fraud does and will continue on credit cards....

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Absolutley true ,once your vote is cast there is nothing more you can do ,it is then the property of the machine and its operators.There is no checks or balances just the word of politicians that its grand.If your online banking goes wrong one would soon know and can sort it.

jmayo wrote: »

With bank/credit cards as mentioned by other posters the user and the provider can check statements and have a transaction trail that can be used to ascertain what happened and conduct audits.
AFAIK there is no way with the current electronic election system to completly verify that the arrived at result was/is correct.
Can you track an actual ballot or break down the ballots from each machine ?
The least the system should be able to do is verify it's conclusions and be tamper proof.



I won't mention mobile phones :rolleyes:

Amazing. The word Luddite springs to mind.:D

Mr.Micro wrote: »

If people continue to knowingly vote in tainted politicians ,tax dodgers ,tax defaulters ,brown envelope takers etc it is no surprise then that we end up with incompetent TD s who have agendas of their own.How could these people be trusted with electronic voting machines ?

How can we trust people with paper and pen? They keep electing the wrong politicians.:rolleyes:

LostinBlanch

jmayo wrote: »

Bertie bafoon and Biffo elected with 98% of the vote would have a good sound to it for the soldiers of destiny grassroots wouldn't it now :rolleyes:.

Not meaning to rain on your parade here jmayo but you don't have to go to electronic voting to get highly unusual voting patterns. Look at the article in Sunday's Tribune by Shane Coleman and Odran Flynn about possible widespread fraud in the last election due to the huge overstatement in the electoral roll nationally. I couldn't find the article on the tribune site, but I did see it on the link above; and, after scanning it briefly it seemed to match the text in my copy of the tribune. TBH I'm surprised the article didn't even get a mention on here previously. Anyway, here's the text:

COULD there have been widespread voter fraud in last May's general election?

The instinctive answer of most people in the political world would be 'no'.

Everybody now accepts the Sunday Tribune's original contention that the electoral register is a mess and is overstated.

But there is a world of difference between this and suggestions that a percentage of the excess hundreds of thousands of polling cards sent out were actually used to manipulate the vote.

However, there is no denying the unusual voting patterns in the general election just gone.

These unusual patterns are masked because the register is so hugely overstated.

As a result, the percentage turnout figure, while higher than would have been expected before the election, doesn't seem particularly out of the norm.

But a very different picture is presented when the number of people who voted in each constituency is compared to the number of Irish and British adults (ie the people entitled to vote in a general election) living in each constituency, based on last year's census figure.

The census figure for British and Irish adults is much more relevant because, unlike the vastly overstated register of electors, it is quite accurate and there would have been minimal changes between the time the census was taken and last year's general election.

When the voter numbers in the general election are compared with Irish and UK adults, it shows 12 of the 43 constituencies had a turnout of close to, or in excess of, 80% (the highest being Cork North-West at 84.4%).

Nothing so unusual about that you might think.

A turnout of in the region of 80% is certainly high but not entirely out of the question, even in these apolitical times.

But the true picture is almost certainly much more stark than that.

The above figures are based on the assumption that 100% of British and Irish adults are on the electoral register. Nowhere in the world . . . not even in countries where there is compulsory registration . . . is there 100% registration. It is much more normal to have a registration rate of 85% of adults.

The best a country can realistically hope to attain . . . generally after a sustained voter registration campaign involving regular door-to-door inquiries . . . is in the region of 90%.

Taking the impossibility of a 100% registration rate into account, a fresh examination of the turnout figures suddenly leaves them looking extremely high.

If we assume 90% of adults are on the electoral register, then there are five constituencies that had a turnout last May in excess of 90% . . . absolutely unheard of in recent times.

The turnout in Cork North-West, for example, would have been just short of 94%.

Alternatively, if we assume 85% of adults are on the electoral register . . . which would be in keeping with international norms . . . then a total of 14 constituencies had a turnout of in excess of 90%.

And, in total, 29 of the 43 constituencies would have had a turnout of greater than 80%.

Simply impossible to believe.

In this scenario, Cork North-West would have had a turnout of 99.3%, while in Roscommon/Leitrim South, Tipperary North, Mayo and Cavan-Monaghan more than 95% of voters would have turned up to cast their ballot.

That level of turnout is clearly not believable.

So what is going on?

One obvious explanation for the voting patterns is students and young workers returning from urban centres to the home place to cast their vote.

These people may have been recorded as living in Dublin, Cork, Galway or some other urban centre on the night the census was taken.

But that doesn't preclude them from having a vote in their home village or town and going home to cast that vote on election day.

However, there are a couple of reasons why this doesn't come even close to explaining what happened last May.

Firstly, the number of students and workers who would come back on a Thursday evening to cast their vote would have to be enormous to explain turnouts in some constituencies of well in excess of 90%.

In each of the constituencies of Cork NorthWest and Cork South-West, for example, there are 3,000 third-level students.

But a significant proportion of them reside at home, so even if all the remainder of the students living outside the constituency returned home to vote, it doesn't begin to explain the high turnout in these constituencies.

Secondly, and more importantly, a look at the national picture shows this is not simply a case of people voting in different constituencies to where they live.

When the total number of Irish and British adults is compared with the number of votes cast, it points to a turnout of 71.09 . . . exceptionally high by modern standards.

But again that assumes that every Irish and British adult is on the electoral register . . . a total impossibility.

If 90% of adults are on the register . . . the highest realistically possible based on international standards . . . then the turnout in May's election was 79%.

That is a mere two percentage points behind the record for a general election set in 1933 of 81.3% when interest and active participation in politics was far higher than it is today.

And if a lower figure of 85% of adults are on the register, then the turnout in May was an even more staggering 83.63% . . . which would be a record for a general election.

Clearly something is seriously amiss. The reaction from the political classes is pretty easy to predict.

Any suggestion of widespread voter fraud at the last general election will be immediately ruled out.

It is an entirely understandable reaction.

The alternative is too awful to contemplate.

Nobody can say for definite at this stage that there was voter fraud at the last general election.

But somebody somewhere in government will have to look at the figures and explain the highly unusual voter patterns in the general election of five months ago . . . because the figures, quite simply, do not add up.

It doesn't actually allege electoral fraud but it does point out large anomalies that would raise eyebrows in any properly functioning democracy.

jmayo

LostinBlanch wrote: »

Not meaning to rain on your parade here jmayo but you don't have to go to electronic voting to get highly unusual voting patterns.

It doesn't actually allege electoral fraud but it does point out large anomalies that would raise eyebrows in any properly functioning democracy.

Yeah the electoral register has been properly screwed up and of course now Gormless wants to have an independent commission or something to sort it out.
More jobs for more of the boys.
How come with all the civil servants and all the database technology available today we can't manage to record who is illegible to vote is mind boggling.
Of course maybe certain entities want to adopt the Florida approach and remove anyone that might vote incorrectly

Why the hell they can't register everyone and link it to their PPS number is beyond me.

But of course someone will find a reason that can't be done :rolleyes:

Then again maybe like Lyndon B Johnson voters some of ours are resident in the graveyard.

Mr.Micro

Mick86 wrote: »

Amazing. The word Luddite springs to mind.:D



How can we trust people with paper and pen? They keep electing the wrong politicians.:rolleyes:

Well they do in Tipperary anyway .The more tainted the better it appears .

oscarBravo

Mick86 wrote: »

Amazing. The word Luddite springs to mind.:D

Only if the mind was slammed shut long before any contrary evidence showed up. It's instructive that those most vocally opposed to electronic voting in the form proposed in this country are IT professionals - hardly your typical Luddites.

Mick86 wrote: »

How can we trust people with paper and pen? They keep electing the wrong politicians.:rolleyes:

That's a different issue, and one for another discussion. As bad as our current crop of electors are, if we believe in democracy, we must put up with (I can't bring myself to say "respect") their decision.

If, however, we believe in democracy, we must also be as sure as we can possibly be that the outcome of the election actually represents the will of the electors. Electronic voting contributes nothing towards such an assurance, and opens up myriad new avenues for subverting it.

As an aside, discussion of e-voting is just about on-topic, because of Cullen's entrenched refusal to countenance the possibility that it could possibly be anything other than perfect. Discussion of the state of the electoral register is off-topic.

Boggle

Amazing. The word Luddite springs to mind.

Hardly. I have no issue with the use of technology in the voting system. What I have a problem with is when utter morons are charged with the task and then not only fail to accomplish the feat - but absolutely and utterly fail!

E voting was a perfectly logical and workable idea that had kibosh put on it by the opposition for PR purposes.

Was it really? remember the Dutch guys....?
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/evoting-the--story-so-far-1166262.html

Oscarbravo wrote:

It's instructive that those most vocally opposed to electronic voting in the form proposed in this country are IT professionals - hardly your typical Luddites.

Liek Oscarbravo said; the current system was obviously not going to work. Anyone with half a brain and who even knows what a PC looks like should have known this!
So.... Martin Cullen...how is he still in a job?

Dac51

Bertie Ahern? How is he still in a job?

Noel Dempsey? How is he still in a job?

Mary Harney? How is she still in a job?

Martin Cullen - Easy target.

DrumSteve

Dac51 wrote: »

Bertie Ahern? How is he still in a job?

Noel Dempsey? How is he still in a job?

Mary Harney? How is she still in a job?

Martin Cullen - Easy target.

only because he made himself such an easy target by being a complete idiot.

aidan24326

DrumSteve wrote: »

only because he made himself such an easy target by being a complete idiot.

For sure. In the league table of screwups and incompetence Cullen is certainly up near the top.

juuge

Where else would any of these people get a job? and if they did they wouldn't last too long.

Mr.Micro

juuge wrote: »

Where else would any of these people get a job? and if they did they wouldn't last too long.

It actually proves one thing ,we do not really need half these incompetents in office ,we could probably do a whole lot better.