Gerry Adams to run for President ?

pablomakaveli

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

Yes, but as an issue on its own should it stop absentee voting, especially considering many countries currently operate such procedures? UK citizens for example can vote for 15 years after leaving the UK in UK & EU parliamentary elections.

That doesn't mean it's a good idea though. It's actually quite unfair to give someone who has lived outside the country for years a vote in a parliamentary election when the outcome will unlikely impact on them if they continue to live outside the country.

Mr Cumulonimbus

oscarBravo wrote: »

Sorry, but that just demonstrates that you don't understand the issues involved in designing a secure electronic voting system. It's pretty much an insurmountable problem.

So we give up then? Who says it has to be an uniquely electronic based one? Are you opposed to the postal voting system used in this jurisdiction by certain types of voter living here?

This may come as a shock to you, but NASA wouldn't be implementing an electronic voting system for us.

I said "NASA level", not meaning NASA itself.

Let's bring this back yet again to first principles. Happyman42 believes that a referendum to allow people in Northern Ireland to vote would unquestionably pass, because there couldn't possibly be any conceivable objection to such a proposition. I've pointed out that there are, in fact, conceivable objections to the proposition. Now, I've never claimed that the objections are insurmountable - that's just one of a number of straw men that get ushered into the fray any time anyone has the temerity to challenge the gospel of united Ireland republicanism - I've simply pointed out that it's not a foregone conclusion that people would vote for the proposition, as hard as that concept may be for some to wrap their heads around.

Irish citizens anywhere in the world (and above it if one eventually goes into space!) for me.

oscarBravo

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

So we give up then? Who says it has to be an uniquely electronic based one? Are you opposed to the postal voting system used in this jurisdiction by certain types of voter living here?

I'm opposed to anything that damages the integrity of our secret ballot, and the widespread adoption of postal voting certainly does that.

I said "NASA level", not meaning NASA itself.

Do you have any idea how NASA develops software?

Not that it matters, because electronic voting will never happen in the controlled environment of an orbital research laboratory.

Secure electronic voting is an intractable problem. It pretty much can't be done. Similarly, postal voting introduces insecurities into the electoral process. So that's the question you'd be asking the electorate: are you prepared to compromise the integrity of our electoral process in order to let Northern Ireland citizens vote?

Irish citizens anywhere in the world (and above it if one eventually goes into space!) for me.

So you would be happy to compromise the integrity of the electoral system to let them vote - fair enough, but don't assume everyone else would feel the same way.

Mr Cumulonimbus

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm opposed to anything that damages the integrity of our secret ballot, and the widespread adoption of postal voting certainly does that. Do you have any idea how NASA develops software?

Not that it matters, because electronic voting will never happen in the controlled environment of an orbital research laboratory.

Already happened for astronauts that want to vote while in space during US elections. If an Irish astronaut wants to vote in a future Irish election we can give NASA a ring on how to do it! Also how does the complexities of how NASA writes its software become an impediment on how they introduced this voting procedure for their astronauts? As I said before you keep looking for problems.

http://www.space.com/6052-astronauts-vote-space-station.html

Secure electronic voting is an intractable problem. It pretty much can't be done. Similarly, postal voting introduces insecurities into the electoral process. So that's the question you'd be asking the electorate: are you prepared to compromise the integrity of our electoral process in order to let Northern Ireland citizens vote? So you would be happy to compromise the integrity of the electoral system to let them vote - fair enough, but don't assume everyone else would feel the same way.

You seem to see this as an intractable problem, I dont. So you would abolish all forms of absentee voting currently in place as you dont think they are secure enough?

Also it's not correct to say people living in NI can't vote in elections here. NUI and TCD graduates resident in NI are entitled to a vote in elections to Seanad Eireann according to Sean Barratt in a piece in today's Irish Times. Article 18 in the constitution deals with SE.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/senator-calls-on-taoiseach-to-resign-over-20m-ego-trip-1.1551731

oscarBravo

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

Already happened for astronauts that want to vote while in space during US elections. If an Irish astronaut wants to vote in a future Irish election we can give NASA a ring on how to do it! Also how does the complexities of how NASA writes its software become an impediment on how they introduced this voting procedure for their astronauts? As I said before you keep looking for problems.

I don't know if you're being deliberately obtuse in order to keep arguing for the sake of it, but I'll clarify: if electronic voting is introduced for Irish citizens abroad, that voting won't be taking place in the ISS, but in much less secure environments.

You seem to see this as an intractable problem, I dont.

Then you haven't given it as much thought as I have. I've been designing computer systems since 1987. I was tangentially involved in the process of evaluating the security of the e-voting fiasco we happily failed to introduce here. I've studied the problems inherent in electronic voting as implemented all over the world.

But apparently I'm wrong, and musha it'll be grand.

So you would abolish all forms of absentee voting currently in place as you dont think they are secure enough?

I didn't say that. You seem to be subscribing to the fallacy that if it's possible to secure a small number of entrances, then it's equally easy to secure a large number of entrances, which is self-evidently untrue. Absentee voting is a weak point in our voting system, but it's limited in scope. Opening up absentee voting to a wider electorate by definition weakens the security of the ballot.

Tell me: do you understand why it is that we vote through the mechanism of a public secret ballot?

Mr Cumulonimbus

oscarBravo wrote: »

I don't know if you're being deliberately obtuse in order to keep arguing for the sake of it, but I'll clarify: if electronic voting is introduced for Irish citizens abroad, that voting won't be taking place in the ISS, but in much less secure environments.

Obviously. I'm just highlighting what's possible when a problem is seen.

Then you haven't given it as much thought as I have. I've been designing computer systems since 1987. I was tangentially involved in the process of evaluating the security of the e-voting fiasco we happily failed to introduce here. I've studied the problems inherent in electronic voting as implemented all over the world.

But apparently I'm wrong, and musha it'll be grand.

Never said you were wrong. I'm just trying to see it from an optimistic point of view. As said previously, if it's okayed in any future referendum a system has to come in to enable it's implementation.

I didn't say that. You seem to be subscribing to the fallacy that if it's possible to secure a small number of entrances, then it's equally easy to secure a large number of entrances, which is self-evidently untrue. Absentee voting is a weak point in our voting system, but it's limited in scope. Opening up absentee voting to a wider electorate by definition weakens the security of the ballot.

Understood, but I don't think it's a valid enough reason to throw out the concept of absentee voting because it can't be delivered to 100% perfection. You said you were happy with the paper and pencil solution. What about the human error inherent in the counting of said paper votes? It's not 100% accurate either when you look at recounts etc.

Tell me: do you understand why it is that we vote through the mechanism of a public secret ballot?

I do, but more than one system should be available, if needed (to replace postal voting for those who can attend a voting centre in person?), for its safe delivery don't you think?

oscarBravo

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

Obviously. I'm just highlighting what's possible when a problem is seen.

What's possible and what's feasible are two completely different animals.

Never said you were wrong. I'm just trying to see it from an optimistic point of view.

I know people who approach systems design from an optimistic point of view. It's a sure-fire way to end up with a broken system. If you're designing a system from any point of view other than extreme paranoia, you're doing it wrong.

As said previously, if it's okayed in any future referendum a system has to come in to enable it's implementation.

Yes. And that's one of my reasons for opposing the idea.

Understood, but I don't think it's a valid enough reason to throw out the concept of absentee voting because it can't be delivered to 100% perfection. You said you were happy with the paper and pencil solution. What about the human error inherent in the counting of said paper votes? It's not 100% accurate either when you look at recounts etc.

I've had that argument with someone else here before - the argument goes something like "our current system isn't perfect, therefore it's OK to make it worse". That's a non-sequitur in my book.

I do, but more than one system should be available, if needed (to replace postal voting for those who can attend a voting centre in person?), for its safe delivery don't you think?

I have yet to be convinced that the need for it would outweigh the risks it introduces.

Mr Cumulonimbus

oscarBravo wrote: »

the argument goes something like "our current system isn't perfect, therefore it's OK to make it worse".

So in that case, our current system only has a certain level of integrity, which you are happy with?

Also the Seanad stays, so TCD & NUI graduates resident in NI plus anywhere else it seems (who are Irish citizens) can continue to vote in elections here. So if some NI residents can vote here, why not others?

oscarBravo

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

So in that case, our current system only has a certain level of integrity, which you are happy with?

I'm not sure why you keep inventing positions of mine to argue with. As I've said over and over and over and over again, I don't want to see our electoral system made any worse. That doesn't mean I don't want to see it made better.

Also the Seanad stays, so TCD & NUI graduates resident in NI plus anywhere else it seems (who are Irish citizens) can continue to vote in elections here. So if some NI residents can vote here, why not others?

They can't "vote in elections here", they can vote for Seanad candidates. Are you under the illusion that the article in the constitution that mandates postal voting for the Seanad somehow magically applies to other elections? Is this the sort of "it would suit my argument if the constitution meant this, therefore it means this" argument we've seen already in this thread?

Mr Cumulonimbus

oscarBravo wrote: »

They can't "vote in elections here", they can vote for Seanad candidates.

Ok, strictly speaking they can't vote here in a geographical sense of attending an actual polling station. But certain classes of non-resident Irish citizens can participate in Irish elections via the postal system of voting.

it would suit my argument if the constitution meant this, therefore it means this

Whats your point? To repeat, certain non-resident Irish citizens can vote in elections here, via the postal voting system.

oscarBravo

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

Ok, strictly speaking they can't vote here in a geographical sense of attending an actual polling station. But certain classes of non-resident Irish citizens can participate in Irish elections via the postal system of voting.

No. Certain classes of Irish citizens (resident or otherwise) can participate in Seanad elections via the postal voting system.

Whats your point? To repeat, certain non-resident Irish citizens can vote in elections here, via the postal voting system.

Repeating it doesn't make it more true, and doesn't negate any of the points I've made.

Mr Cumulonimbus

oscarBravo wrote: »

No. Certain classes of Irish citizens (resident or otherwise) can participate in Seanad elections via the postal voting system.

Ok then. A Seanad election is a form of Irish election, with 49 members (including 6 representing TCD & NUI) elected by postal vote, plus 11 nominated by the Taoiseach.

If you seem to be against non-resident Irish citizens having voting rights in elections here, would you remove those voting rights that currently exist for this group of Irish citizens (NI + elsewhere resident TCD & NUI grads)?

According to this paper submitted to an oireachtas committee (p. 74-75), TCD's senate electorate amounts to some 100,000 with 20% resident outside the state.

Imagine, today's referendum on Seanad abolition was going to disenfrancise a particular class of Irish citizen's voting rights without their consent. What's that about integrity again oscar?

Mentioned here by Sean Barratt in a letter to the Belfast News Letter.

Northern Ireland residents have no vote in the referendum to abolish their voting rights.

Manassas61

I think we can rule Gerry Adams out of running for Irish President now. He should perhaps look to disappear from the public eye for good. Any little bit of credibility he had is now gone.

Happyman42

oscarBravo wrote: »

Now, you'll almost certainly engage in yet more hand-waving about how electronic voting is one of those minor details we can figure out later, but that just demonstrates that you haven't thought about the problem - and believe me, I have. And that's just a lazy ad-hominem attack to avoid having to contemplate the idea that anyone who doesn't subscribe completely to your single-minded political philosophy is a "neandarthal", a "partitionist", and whatever other names you feel the need to call people who disagree with you.

Just because we cannot organise a secure election (I think it can be done)
does not mean that we cannot give citizens the right to vote. For instance, people organise their own transport home from colleges to vote in elections BECAUSE they have the right to vote. The actual 'right' comes first, your reservations about actually organising that vote are noted, can you stop going on about it now and get to the substantive issue?

Let's bring this back yet again to first principles. Happyman42 believes that a referendum to allow people in Northern Ireland to vote would unquestionably pass, because there couldn't possibly be any conceivable objection to such a proposition.

Happyman said no such thing, Happyman asked, 'what possible objection could an Irish person have to giving another Irish citizen the vote'. You still haven't answered that. Move to the hypothetical, we have a secure system to do it and the ROI have sanctioned it...would you have further objections?

Iwasfrozen

Happyman42 wrote: »

Happyman said no such thing, Happyman asked, 'what possible objection could an Irish person have to giving another Irish citizen the vote'. You still haven't answered that. Move to the hypothetical, we have a secure system to do it and the ROI have sanctioned it...would you have further objections?

Here's two.

1. What passes in our legislature does not directly affect them.
2. We don't have a vote in the house of Commons.

Happyman42

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Here's two.

1. What passes in our legislature does not directly affect them.
2. We don't have a vote in the house of Commons.

1. I think it can be shown in the 'special circumstances that the GFA represents that "The President' of a state they identify with is something they are entitled to affect.
2. That's a tad simplistic and childish ('it's my ball' ) a response tbh.

losthorizon

I thought he already was President? He never takes part in any meaningful political debate anyway just like a president should. The non political Higgins says more. Mary Lou MacDonald the not leader of Sinn Fein is always wheeled out to answer questions.

Plus he has big big questions to answer about what and when he knew about his brother and why it was not reported earlier.

oscarBravo

Happyman42 wrote: »

Just because we cannot organise a secure election (I think it can be done)
does not mean that we cannot give citizens the right to vote.

Your belief that a secure form of electronic voting can be implemented has no bearing on whether or not it can.

The actual 'right' comes first, your reservations about actually organising that vote are noted, can you stop going on about it now and get to the substantive issue?

You just don't get it, do you? For you, the substantive issue is letting people in Northern Ireland vote. For me, the substative issue is the integrity of the ballot. I get that you don't care about the integrity of the ballot (and no, "I'm sure we can figure it out" doesn't count as caring about it), but your lack of concern is never going to make me stop caring about it.

Happyman said no such thing, Happyman asked, 'what possible objection could an Irish person have to giving another Irish citizen the vote'. You still haven't answered that.

I have. Repeatedly. The fact that you don't agree with my objections doesn't mean I don't have valid objections.

Move to the hypothetical, we have a secure system to do it and the ROI have sanctioned it...would you have further objections?

After we've perfected a means of securely running an election outside the state, I'll review my objections.

Happyman42 wrote: »

I think it can be shown in the 'special circumstances that the GFA represents that "The President' of a state they identify with is something they are entitled to affect.

That's a near-perfect example of circular reasoning: "I think people in Northern Ireland should be entitled to vote for the President because I feel that people in Northern Ireland are entitled to vote for the President."

Happyman42

oscarBravo wrote: »

Your belief that a secure form of electronic voting can be implemented has no bearing on whether or not it can. You just don't get it, do you? For you, the substantive issue is letting people in Northern Ireland vote. For me, the substative issue is the integrity of the ballot. I get that you don't care about the integrity of the ballot (and no, "I'm sure we can figure it out" doesn't count as caring about it), but your lack of concern is never going to make me stop caring about it. I have. Repeatedly. The fact that you don't agree with my objections doesn't mean I don't have valid objections. After we've perfected a means of securely running an election outside the state, I'll review my objections.

That's a near-perfect example of circular reasoning: "I think people in Northern Ireland should be entitled to vote for the President because I feel that people in Northern Ireland are entitled to vote for the President."

We give the right to vote to people in the Republic without any regard to how they are actually going to vote (eg, people living/working/studying outside their constituencies) THE RIGHT comes first.
We could for instance say, you are entitled to vote if you can make it to a polling station in Cavan, Monaghan or Donegal. The point is the enfranchisement of all people who see themselves as citizens. Logistics can come later.

oscarBravo

Happyman42 wrote: »

We give the right to vote to people in the Republic without any regard to how they are actually going to vote (eg, people living/working/studying outside their constituencies) THE RIGHT comes first.
We could for instance say, you are entitled to vote if you can make it to a polling station in Cavan, Monaghan or Donegal. The point is the enfranchisement of all people who see themselves as citizens. Logistics can come later.

Oh, come on. That's bollox. We give people resident in constituencies the right to vote in those constituencies, if and only if they present themselves at a polling booth in the constituency in which they're registered.

I have a right to vote in Mayo, because I'm an Irish citizen who's registered to vote in Mayo. If I'm not in Mayo on election day, I don't get to vote, because my RIGHT to vote is trumped by the physical requirements designed around the security of the ballot.

Irish citizens living abroad have the RIGHT to vote in Irish elections, but as they're not registered to vote in constituencies in which they're resident, they can't exercise that right.

Iwasfrozen

Happyman42 wrote: »

1. I think it can be shown in the 'special circumstances that the GFA represents that "The President' of a state they identify with is something they are entitled to affect.
2. That's a tad simplistic and childish ('it's my ball' ) a response tbh.

1. Where exactly in the GFA does it explicitly say that?
2. Nope. We can see in the UK what problems are caused when one jurisdiction gets it's own parliament and a vote in it's neighbours. (Free education in Scotland anyone?) When we have a vote in your house of Commons then you can have a vote in our Dáil Eireann.

Happyman42

oscarBravo wrote: »

Oh, come on. That's bollox. We give people resident in constituencies the right to vote in those constituencies, if and only if they present themselves at a polling booth in the constituency in which they're registered.

I have a right to vote in Mayo, because I'm an Irish citizen who's registered to vote in Mayo. If I'm not in Mayo on election day, I don't get to vote, because my RIGHT to vote is trumped by the physical requirements designed around the security of the ballot.

Irish citizens living abroad have the RIGHT to vote in Irish elections, but as they're not registered to vote in constituencies in which they're resident, they can't exercise that right.

Exactly...the RIGHT is the important thing from a citizenship point of view not whether you get to excercise it or not. In that sense your objection on logistical grounds is moot.

Happyman42

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

1. Where exactly in the GFA does it explicitly say that?

It doesn't refer to presidential elections, but it does refer to freedom to express identities. That applies if they are invited to vote in presidential elections by the ROI . It does not dilute or diminish the current status of N.I.

1. Nope. We can see in the UK what problems are caused when one jurisdiction gets it's own parliament and a vote in it's neighbours. (Free education in Scotland anyone?) When we have a vote in your house of Commons then you can have a vote in our Dáil Eireann.

Plenty of things apply in Scotland that don't in England. Other than allowing a significant community to express their identity what problem could it cause in either jurisdiction?

Iwasfrozen

Happyman42 wrote: »

It doesn't refer to presidential elections, but it does refer to freedom to express identities. That applies if they are invited to vote in presidential elections by the ROI . It does not dilute or diminish the current status of N.I.

Express identities is meaningless waffle, if you want to introduce a major law like this you're going to need more substantial then the GFA to justify it.

Happyman42 wrote: »

Plenty of things apply in Scotland that don't in England. Other than allowing a significant community to express their identity what problem could it cause in either jurisdiction?

Lots of problems. They don't have a constituency to vote in and if we extended the vote to people living in Northern Ireland we'd have to extend it to other Irish citizens living in foreign countries. It's simply not practical.

Happyman42

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Express identities is meaningless waffle,

Yes, Unionists laboured under that delusion for long enough, look how that turned out.

if you want to introduce a major law like this you're going to need more substantial then the GFA to justify it.

All it requires is a change in the constitution here. It doesn't affect N.I. as a state nor should it.

Lots of problems. They don't have a constituency to vote in and if we extended the vote to people living in Northern Ireland we'd have to extend it to other Irish citizens living in foreign countries. It's simply not practical.

What constituency is an American abroad in? Allowing people on islands off our shore to vote isn't 'practical' either but we overcome the logistics, because having the right to vote is important.

Iwasfrozen

Happyman42 wrote: »

Yes, Unionists laboured under that delusion for long enough, look how that turned out.

What?

All it requires is a change in the constitution here. It doesn't affect N.I. as a state nor should it.

Then you'd have to pass a referendum you have no hope of passing.

What constituency is an American abroad in? Allowing people on islands off our shore to vote isn't 'practical' either but we overcome the logistics, because having the right to vote is important.

None, that's why they can't vote. And the people who live on islands are residents of Ireland*.

*The legal definition of Ireland not geographical obviously.

LordSutch

HRH_The_Queen wrote: »

Gerry Adams to run for President?

Never mind why Adams might run, Why is this thread still running?

And why has it been resurrected after an eight year coma?

Iwasfrozen

LordSutch wrote: »

Never mind why Adams might run, Why is this thread still running?

Because someone is wrong on the internet!!!!!

Happyman42

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Then you'd have to pass a referendum you have no hope of passing.

That is your opinion.

None, that's why they can't vote.

Americans can vote from abroad.

https://www.google.ie/?gws_rd=cr&ei=I_BRUrKWOdPn7AbD2oDgCw#q=can+americans+vote+from+abroad

And the people who live on islands are residents of Ireland*.

*The legal definition of Ireland not geographical obviously.

But the point was, allowing them to vote isn't practical logistically, but it is overcome because they have the RIGHT to vote. The Right comes first, logistics shouldn't rule it out.

Iwasfrozen

Happyman42 wrote: »

That is your opinion.

It is.

Americans can vote from abroad.

https://www.google.ie/?gws_rd=cr&ei=I_BRUrKWOdPn7AbD2oDgCw#q=can+americans+vote+from+abroad

Irish citizens in America can't vote in our elections. That's the point, remember?

But the point was, allowing them to vote isn't practical logistically, but it is overcome because they have the RIGHT to vote. The Right comes first, logistics shouldn't rule it out.

All residents of the Republic of Ireland (I know technically it's not called that but it eases confusion) have the right to vote. Citizenship on it's own is not enough, you have to be a resident citizen.