E Voting Machines Query

Lapin

This may seem an outdated question but it is something I have often meant to ask in the past.

Was there an option for voters to spoil their vote using the ill fated E voting machines?

According to Nealon's Guide to the 29th Dáil no spoiled votes were registered in Dublin North and Meath in the 2002 general election, the only two constituencies where the machines were ever used.

If the option wasn't there is this not a denial of a voters legitimate wish to express their dissatisfaction at all the available candidates?

Atlantic Dawn

There was no spoil option.

Lapin

Could a voter arrive at the polling station, have their name crossed off the electoral register and then leave without casting a vote?

Javan

Lapin wrote: »

Could a voter arrive at the polling station, have their name crossed off the electoral register and then leave without casting a vote?

AFAIK one of the checks that was supposed to be in place was to compare the number of votes cast in a polling station with the number of voters that showed up.
If you showed up and were counted but did not cast a vote then that count would be out. (and the way to fix it might be for someone else to vote on your behalf! )

View

Lapin wrote: »

This may seem an outdated question but it is something I have often meant to ask in the past.

Was there an option for voters to spoil their vote using the ill fated E voting machines?

No although subsequently the government had made a commitment to spend a sizeable chunk of tax-payers monies for an "upgrade" to allow this.

Lapin wrote: »

If the option wasn't there is this not a denial of a voters legitimate wish to express their dissatisfaction at all the available candidates?

The purpose of an election is to elect people. The voting system shouldn't indulge people who want to engage in "protests" that everyone else ignores anyway (IMO).

Zubeneschamali

View wrote: »

The purpose of an election is to elect people. The voting system shouldn't indulge people who want to engage in "protests" that everyone else ignores anyway (IMO).

If you are given the job of computerizing a process, you should computerize it.

You should not implement a different process and say "It should never have been like that in the first place!".

bgrizzley

IIRC they were capable of building in an intentional margin of error to replicate human counting, you would think they could surely have managed "no candidate suitable" option. Like it or not some people like to spoil and imo it's a clear message that the candidates weren't up to much. It's better than not voting at all.

View

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

If you are given the job of computerizing a process, you should computerize it.

You should not implement a different process and say "It should never have been like that in the first place!".

The process is called "voting" - a self-explanatory name.

"Spoiling" your ballot in a voting process is a failure to follow a process.

There is no obligation on the state or anyone else to facilitate people who wilfully refuse to follow a process.


As for your comment on computerisation - people make mistakes in their math all the time. Based on your logic, were the state to buy new accounting software, then presumably we'd have a design requirement that the accounting software makes mathematical errors on a frequent basis to replicate the normal human "manual" math process. After all, we must reproduce the manual process exactly even if we known there are errors in it, right?

View

bgrizzley wrote: »

Like it or not some people like to spoil and imo it's a clear message that the candidates weren't up to much. It's better than not voting at all.

The purpose of an election is to elect people. Only valid votes matter when deciding who gets elected.

Any other "vote", be it "spoilt" or "not cast" is irrelevant as it plays no part in determining who gets elected.

bgrizzley

View wrote: »

The purpose of an election is to elect people. Only valid votes matter when deciding who gets elected.

Any other "vote", be it "spoilt" or "not cast" is irrelevant as it plays no part in determining who gets elected.

The purpose is to elect people that will represent your views, if there is no suitable candidate for those, you should be able to point to that fact. If you keep voting for second rate candidates, because thats your only choice, then you will keep getting them.

Spoilt and not cast are two different kettles of fish, but both do actually play a part in who is finally elected. Someone who doesnt bother their @rse voting is not engaging with the system whatsoever, but even doing that are allowing those who do vote to elect candidates that may not represent them.
I'd like a system like Australia, a fine if you dont vote.

Zubeneschamali

View wrote: »

"Spoiling" your ballot in a voting process is a failure to follow a process.

The voting process today allows me to spoil my vote. Spoiled votes are counted and reported by the returning officer. This is as old as elections.

View

bgrizzley wrote: »

The purpose is to elect people that will represent your views,

No, the purpose is to elect people. You are perfectly free to vote for people who hold views diametrically opposed to your own if you so choose (even if that would be a rather bizarre voting strategy).

Indeed, some voting systems such as FPTP frequently leave voters with a "forced choice" between two stark but electable alternatives as in that system the results tend to be highly "decisive" with strong swings from party to party. In that case, you are usually out of luck as a voter if you want to opt for centrist compromise candidates.

bgrizzley wrote: »

If you keep voting for second rate candidates, because thats your only choice, then you will keep getting them.

In a democracy "first rate" candidates are as free to stand for elections as "second rate" ones so our "first rate" voter has more than one choice as they can stand for election.

bgrizzley wrote: »

Spoilt and not cast are two different kettles of fish, but both do actually play a part in who is finally elected. Someone who doesnt bother their @rse voting is not engaging with the system whatsoever, but even doing that are allowing those who do vote to elect candidates that may not represent them..

Exactly as are voters who spoil their ballot. Both are leaving it to those who vote (properly).

Neither spoiling your ballot nor not voting has any effect on who is elected. Nor does it result in an improved slate of candidates at either that election or subsequent ones.

Politicians don't have to worry about non-voters or "spoilers" effecting their chance of being elected, so can happily make sympathetic noises and then ignore them.

View

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The voting process today allows me to spoil my vote. Spoiled votes are counted and reported by the returning officer. This is as old as elections.

So what?

The returning officer also reports the number of people who can vote and then the number who have voted from which we can - with simple math - figure out the number of non-voters.

Neither that number nor the number of spoilt votes nor the outside temperature play any direct part in deciding who actually is elected, only those votes that are cast (validly) do so.

As for the argument that the current voting system allows you to spoil your ballot that is akin to saying a paper based accounting system allows you to make math errors therefore if the state gets a new computerised one it must allow you to make the same math errors.

bgrizzley

View wrote: »

No, the purpose is to elect people. You are perfectly free to vote for people who hold views diametrically opposed to your own if you so choose (even if that would be a rather bizarre voting strategy).

Indeed, some voting systems such as FPTP frequently leave voters with a "forced choice" between two stark but electable alternatives as in that system the results tend to be highly "decisive" with strong swings from party to party. In that case, you are usually out of luck as a voter if you want to opt for centrist compromise candidates.



In a democracy "first rate" candidates are as free to stand for elections as "second rate" ones so our "first rate" voter has more than one choice as they can stand for election.



Exactly as are voters who spoil their ballot. Both are leaving it to those who vote (properly).

Neither spoiling your ballot nor not voting has any effect on who is elected. Nor does it result in an improved slate of candidates at either that election or subsequent ones.

Politicians don't have to worry about non-voters or "spoilers" effecting their chance of being elected, so can happily make sympathetic noises and then ignore them.

no, the purpose is to elect people that will best represent your views, what's the point in electing someone that doesnt? you admit its bizarre, but you still argue it!! :rolleyes:

i presume you can spoil in a FPTP system as well, so you are not "forced" to vote for anyone.

If you think the 50ish percent of the populace that dont vote couldnt possibly have an effect on an election you are just plain wrong. Have a think about who are the most unlikely people to vote in this country, then have a think about who they would be most likely to vote for.

do you think a politican takes any notice of you because you vote "properly"?

Black Swan

MOD NOTE: Moved to Elections and Referendums with redirect.

bgrizzley

View wrote: »

As for the argument that the current voting system allows you to spoil your ballot that is akin to saying a paper based accounting system allows you to make math errors therefore if the state gets a new computerised one it must allow you to make the same math errors.

afaik they did build a margin of error into the software for the e-voting machines to replicate human count mistakes.

gizmo555

View wrote: »

The process is called "voting" - a self-explanatory name.

"Spoiling" your ballot in a voting process is a failure to follow a process.

There is no obligation on the state or anyone else to facilitate people who wilfully refuse to follow a process.

From the Irish Computer Society's submission to the Commission on e-voting:

At present, a voter who wishes to abstain secretly, while giving the appearance of having voted normally, has merely to either cast a blank ballot or deliberately spoil his or her vote. It is not difficult to imagine circumstances where one might reasonably wish to do this, say if one was being pressurized to vote contrary to one’s beliefs by a relative, friend or employer. Logically, if the right to abstain exists, the same right to do so in secret applies as to the right to vote in secret.

However, as the Department of the Environment (2002) states: “There can be no spoiled votes. The voter must select a preference or preferences before the machine will accept a vote when the ‘cast vote’ button is pressed.” Although the machine can be deactivated by an electoral official should the voter choose not to press the ‘cast vote’ button, that means that the abstention is no longer secret.

bgrizzley wrote: »

afaik they did build a margin of error into the software for the e-voting machines to replicate human count mistakes.

What you might be thinking of is that in our multi-seat STV system, when a candidate is elected, the surplus over the quota is distributed to the remaining candidates.

In the current paper-based system, the surplus votes are chosen at random. In a computer-based system, it would have been possible to transfer fractional votes, which would have been a more accurate way of doing it. However, the decision was taken to deliberately replicate the less accurate random selection.

Lapin

View wrote: »

The purpose of an election is to elect people. The voting system shouldn't indulge people who want to engage in "protests" that everyone else ignores anyway (IMO).

The purpose of an election in indeed to elect people.

However abstaining from a vote has always been an option too.

Turning up at at a polling station and exercising your franchise by spoiling a vote is a legitimate form of abstaining.
It demonstrates that the voter is disatisfied or undecided more vocally than not bothering to turn up at all.

It may not make any difference to the overall outcome of an election, but that doesn't mean it should be denied.

This has nothing to do with "indulging people who want to engage in protests".

View

bgrizzley wrote: »

no, the purpose is to elect people that will best represent your views, what's the point in electing someone that doesnt? you admit its bizarre, but you still argue it!! :rolleyes:

I was pointing out is is possible, not that it is a recommended voting strategy!

As it is, there is a difference between "the purpose of an election" and "your purpose in voting in an election". You may want someone to represent your views reasonably accurately, "the voting system" though doesn't care about this. There is no guarantee that a candidate will be elected who represents your views - That's fairly clear in FPTP (where a large number of people will not have their preference elected) but also true under PR-STV where, when the last seat is filled, there will be disappointed candidates (and, hence, voters) who will not be represented in the elected chamber.

bgrizzley wrote: »

If you think the 50ish percent of the populace that dont vote couldnt possibly have an effect on an election you are just plain wrong. Have a think about who are the most unlikely people to vote in this country, then have a think about who they would be most likely to vote for.

I believe I specified "direct effect" on the election - that is to say, the people who didn't vote or who spoiled there ballot, might have had a decisive impact on the election result but if they don't express their preference, their opinions are ignored. The election officials only use the (valid) ballots to determine the election result, not the ballots which could have had an impact had the relevant voters cast them (correctly). We don't elect people based on hypothetical ballots.

bgrizzley wrote: »

do you think a politican takes any notice of you because you vote "properly"?

Yes where the "You" is plural. Politicians are aware of which groups are organised, will protest and will vote en masse (or not) for them. And also of which ones don't. They will go out of their way to placate the former and the latter will be on the wrong end of "either/or" decisions as a result.

View

Lapin wrote: »

The purpose of an election in indeed to elect people.

However abstaining from a vote has always been an option too.

Correct but largely due to a "technological limitation" in the system. No one ever held it up to be a "feature".

Lapin wrote: »

Turning up at at a polling station and exercising your franchise by spoiling a vote is a legitimate form of abstaining.
It demonstrates that the voter is disatisfied or undecided more vocally than not bothering to turn up at all.

It doesn't demonstrate anything of the kind. When counting, the election officials distinguish between "number of ballots cast" and "number of valid ballots".

Invalid ballots can occur from either someone making a mistake accidentally or someone spoiling their vote. We do NOT distinguish between them in our system, just as we do not distinguish between those who didn't cast their ballots because they were away on business, those who were too lazy to vote and those who were engaged in a "principled" stay-at-home protest (and who are more logical than those who go to the trouble of going to a polling station to spoil their vote).

More importantly, we do not act on such protests. The election is just as valid if 100 spoil their votes as it is if 1000 spoil them.

It is the valid ballots which are used determine the result not the invalid ones or the not-cast ones.

Lapin wrote: »

This has nothing to do with "indulging people who want to engage in protests".

If you have a computerised voting system (as we were introducing at the time) and you decide to spend tax-payers' money redesigning it to allow people to engage in "protests", then you are most certainly "indulging people" if those "protest" votes are effectively ignored when determining the result.

Zubeneschamali

View wrote: »

No one ever held it up to be a "feature".

Nonsense.

At every election ever, the returning officer counts and reports spoiled votes.

View

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Nonsense.

At every election ever, the returning officer counts and reports spoiled votes.

So? We also distinguish between the total electorate and the total who voted.

It isn't a feature if we can't determine why the votes are spoilt and they have a direct effect on who is elected.

If you want to make it a feature of the voting system, we should presumably re-design the ballot so we can distinguish between the ballots cast by principled spoiler - "Livid from Limerick" - and confused spoiler - "Bewildered from Ballina".

Maybe we should make the ballot paper a couple of A4 pages long, so "Livid" can set out their reasoning at length? Then again, why should we?

We have "Liveline" for that. If people like "Livid" are disgruntled with the candidates on offer, they are free to propose alternative ones.

The onus is on us - the citizens - to make our democracy work for us. It is up to all of us - including people like "Livid" - to ensure we have a good selection of candidates to choose from.

If we are too lazy to do this, the ballot paper is no place to facilitate protests by the lazy. It is there to elect people from the list we have allowed to be available for our choice.

Zubeneschamali

View wrote: »

So?

So if the e-voting system doesn't record and report spoiled votes, it's broken.

It is not up to the developers of the e-voting system to "fix" things they (or you) imagine are wrong or silly or unnecessary.

gizmo555

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

It is not up to the developers of the e-voting system to "fix" things they (or you) imagine are wrong or silly or unnecessary.

This.

In the paper-based system it has always been possible to abstain in secret, while giving the appearance of voting. The evoting system, with no prior debate on the matter whatsoever, removed this possibility.

View

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

So if the e-voting system doesn't record and report spoiled votes, it's broken.

It is called a voting system for a reason and that is because it is for voting. It is not for "not voting". A system that facilitates errors - whether accidental or deliberate - is broken, not the other way round.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

It is not up to the developers of the e-voting system to "fix" things they (or you) imagine are wrong or silly or unnecessary.

They are not "fixing" things. They are quite correctly (and no doubt according to government design criteria) preventing errors from occurring and ensuring that a voting system is used for voting.

Next you'll tell us, that if Revenue roll out a new computerised tax return that people will have to complete, it would be wrong for the designers of the software to prevent people from making errors as they might with a paper-based tax return.

You'd prefer instead that the new computerised system didn't check your math and allowed you to make mistakes right? No doubt when Revenue levied a penalty on you for failing to submit correct returns, you'd wouldn't complain about their stupidity in implementing such a senseless computer system, right?

Zubeneschamali

View wrote: »

It is called a voting system for a reason and that is because it is for voting. It is not for "not voting". A system that facilitates errors - whether accidental or deliberate - is broken, not the other way round.

If you want to change the system, lobby to have the law changed to exclude the counting and reporting of spoiled votes. Good luck. You don't get to do it by accident or stealth as part of a computerization project.

gizmo555

View wrote: »

Correct but largely due to a "technological limitation" in the system. No one ever held it up to be a "feature".

Not true. See, for example, the extract from the submission to the commission on evoting quoted above.

For that matter, see Art 16.4 of the Constitution:

No voter may exercise more than one vote at an election for Dáil Éireann, and the voting shall be by secret ballot.

View

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

If you want to change the system, lobby to have the law changed to exclude the counting and reporting of spoiled votes. Good luck. You don't get to do it by accident or stealth as part of a computerization project.

We DID exclude spoilt ballots already when we had the initial computerised voting system - a computerised system designed to standards set by the Department and its Minister and as approved for by the Oireachtas. That wasn't "by accident or by stealth", it was by design.

And the design specified, of course, dealt with the voting system, not the "not voting" system. The information sent to the electorate inform people how to vote. It does not, and never has, included any form of "official information" on how to "not vote" by making your ballot invalid by "spoiling" it. As such the design correctly specified the form of our voting system.

Anyone believing it should have included an option to deliberately "not vote" is effectively advocating the introduction of a new voting option that has never been a formal part of our voting system, namely that of 'not voting".

As such, it is they, not I, who are advocating we abandon our current PR-STV system for a new electoral system with such an option - and, yes, that is changing the system "by accident or by stealth". And, the onus lies on them to make the case why we should take such a radical action.

View

gizmo555 wrote: »

Not true. See, for example, the extract from the submission to the commission on evoting quoted above.

For that matter, see Art 16.4 of the Constitution:

No voter may exercise more than one vote at an election for Dáil Éireann, and the voting shall be by secret ballot.

The article of the constitution refers to voting by secret ballot not to "not voting" by spoiling your ballot or non-attendance.

There is no constitutional right, as the Irish Computer Society seems to think, to abstain when in the voting booth. You may currently be able to do so due to "technological limitations" with the paper based system but if the Oireachtas implements - as it did - an electronic voting system where that is no longer an option, they are not infringing your right to abstain since you don't actually possess that right in the first place.

Should they do so in future, then we remain under the current constitutional status quo where you have the right to vote and may choose to exercise that right or not.

No one, after all, is advocating mandatory voting and, as such, anyone who wishes to abstain merely needs to avoid their polling station on Election Day.

Zubeneschamali

View wrote: »

We DID exclude spoilt ballots already when we had the initial computerised voting system

That was an error.

Here is an actual returning officer giving the result of an actual count, as the process actually happens:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LApwtbHAAOE

The electronic system "we" designed could not produce that result.

Now you may argue that the problem was with the requirements, or that the Oireachteas signed off, or otherwise that it was not the fault of the developers, but the system they designed cannot accept the inputs or produce the outputs which the manual system does.

It was faulty.

View

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

That was an error.

Here is an actual returning officer giving the result of an actual count, as the process actually happens:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LApwtbHAAOE

The electronic system "we" designed could not produce that result.

Now you may argue that the problem was with the requirements, or that the Oireachteas signed off, or otherwise that it was not the fault of the developers, but the system they designed cannot accept the inputs or produce the outputs which the manual system does.

It was faulty.

The requirement on any voting system - be it computer or paper-based - is that it conforms to the standards set down by the Oireachtas and Minister. No system that does so is "faulty".

With our current paper system, a returning officer is required to conduct the count and provide the results to the Minister in the format that the Minister specifies together with all the (paper) ballots cast in the constituency. Obviously, the latter didn't apply with the system that was implemented and if the Minister/Oireachtas specified that the system allow for PR-STV voting only (i.e. no "non-voting" option was specified) then it was a correct implementation.

There was no requirement on the computerised system to replicate the paper-based system in all its glories and failings. Nor a requirement on the Oireachtas or Minister when drafting the relevant law or order to do so.

Zubeneschamali

View wrote: »

There was no requirement on the computerised system to replicate the paper-based system in all its glories and failings.

If you conduct an election with the faulty system, and I go to the polls and cannot cast a spoiled vote, I have a case that my constitutional right to cast a vote in secret has been violated.

My only options are to not vote (not a secret) or vote for one of the listed candidates (not my intention).

It's faulty and unconstitutional.

gizmo555

View wrote: »

There is no constitutional right, as the Irish Computer Society seems to think, to abstain when in the voting booth.

Whether the ICS is correct or not, it is clear that your assertion that 'no one ever held it [the ability to abstain in secret] up to be a "feature" ' is plain wrong. Other submissions made substantially the same point as the ICS too.

View

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

If you conduct an election with the faulty system,

Again the system was not faulty unless it failed to conform to the requirement specified by the Oireachtas or Minister.

You don't get to trump a decision of the Oireachtas just because they make one you don't agree with.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

and I go to the polls and cannot cast a spoiled vote, I have a case that my constitutional right to cast a vote in secret has been violated.

Having a case and having a winnable case are two different things.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

My only options are to not vote (not a secret) or vote for one of the listed candidates (not my intention).

Neither of these options infringe your constitutional right to vote in secret. If you choose not to exercise that right, for whatever reason, that's your choice (and, no, we are not required to keep that a secret).

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

It's faulty and unconstitutional.

Point out where the Supreme Court ruled either the system was faulty or unconstitutional, or, indeed, that you have a right to "spoil" your ballot.

As of now, the reality is, the "petty details" of the voting system are left to the Oireachtas within "broad" constitutional parameters.

View

gizmo555 wrote: »

Whether the ICS is correct or not, it is clear that your assertion that 'no one ever held it [the ability to abstain in secret] up to be a "feature" ' is plain wrong. Other submissions made substantially the same point as the ICS too.

A "feature" is usually regarded as being a benefit to a system - a desirable quality which makes it easier to achieve its purpose.

Thus, a feature, might help reduce the number of errors in a system (by preventing them from occuring). Something that enables them to occur when they could easily be prevented is not.

And, sorry, but the issue of whether you have a legal right to spoil your vote deliberately is pretty fundamental to deciding which side of this argument is correct.

If the Supreme Court rules tomorrow you have a right to deliberately spoil your vote in the polling booth then you are absolutely correct in your assertions. If they don't make such a ruling, then it is (and was) left up to the Oireachtas to implement the voting system as they saw fit.

Zubeneschamali

View wrote: »

Again the system was not faulty unless it failed to conform to the requirement specified by the Oireachtas or Minister.

Way back when in the thread, you wrote:

View wrote: »

No although subsequently the government had made a commitment to spend a sizeable chunk of tax-payers monies for an "upgrade" to allow this.

so clearly the politicians agreed, once the fault was pointed out, that is was a fault.

View

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Way back when in the thread, you wrote:



so clearly the politicians agreed, once the fault was pointed out, that is was a fault.

They agreed they would change the specification for the voting system to accommodate such behaviour. That isn't the same thing as agreeing it was a "fault". Merely, I suspect, a desire for some peace and quiet.

To the best of my knowledge they never actually did change the law to give effect to that agreement. It was long-fingered at the time. I would suspect such a change would have been open to constitutional challenge as you no longer are operating "pure" PR-STV if you make such a change.

And whether the government SHOULD have agrees to implement that change is a different question.

After all, under the current paper ballot system, if I am truly determined to "make a point", I can eat my paper ballot if I so choose. I don't think my "right" to eat my ballot is one that should be regarded as critical to the design of a computerised voting system though! And, certainly not one the law should take into account much less enshrine.

gizmo555

View wrote: »

After all, under the current paper ballot system, if I am truly determined to "make a point", I can eat my paper ballot if I so choose.

Wrong again - you're not allowed take the ballot paper from the polling station

Zubeneschamali

View wrote: »

They agreed they would change the specification for the voting system to accommodate such behaviour.

Exactly, which they would not have done if you were correct and spoiled votes are just a flaw in the existing system.

And they are, as you have pointed out, the people with the authority to make that call, unless the Supreme Court rules otherwise.