Election Counts. when do they finish?

Stephen88

Does anyone know when these election counts finish?

Stheno

WHen all of the seats have been filled?

K-9

Wexford is on tomorrow and you might get some deferred until then as well with recounts.

sjb25

K-9 wrote: »

Wexford is on tomorrow and you might get some deferred until then as well with recounts.

Wexford recount starting at 10 in the morning so be well into the afternoon I'd say aswell before any white smoke

Inquitus

If we had Computer voting it would all be done and dusted 5 mins after the polls closed. What harm to have Computerised polling machines and you get a printout and sign it after you've voted to acknowledge its correct, you then deposit it in a standard vote box, and the hard copies are audited on a random sample basis covering say manual counts of 25% of the constituencies, to ensure correctness.

heebusjeebus

Inquitus wrote: »

If we had Computer voting it would all be done and dusted 5 mins after the polls closed. What harm to have Computerised polling machines and you get a printout and sign it after you've voted to acknowledge its correct, you then deposit it in a standard vote box, and the hard copies are audited on a random sample basis covering say manual counts of 25% of the constituencies, to ensure correctness.

We've spent plenty on that already. Don't think any government will attempt that again.

ArmaniJeanss

Inquitus wrote: »

If we had Computer voting it would all be done and dusted 5 mins after the polls closed. What harm to have Computerised polling machines and you get a printout and sign it after you've voted to acknowledge its correct, you then deposit it in a standard vote box, and the hard copies are audited on a random sample basis covering say manual counts of 25% of the constituencies, to ensure correctness.

I'd hate that to be honest, theres a great 'democracy in action' feel to everything we've seen over the last 36 hours.

When they experimented with the machines (Meath East 2007??) I thought it was very anticlimatic the way the result of all the seats was just announced.

Inquitus

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

I'd hate that to be honest, theres a great 'democracy in action' feel to everything we've seen over the last 36 hours.

When they experimented with the machines (Meath East 2007??) I thought it was very anticlimatic the way the result of all the seats was just announced.

But then, we have a few recounts, and with less than 100 votes in the differences across a manual human count, how can you be sure you actually get the right answer?

oscarBravo

Inquitus wrote: »

If we had Computer voting it would all be done and dusted 5 mins after the polls closed. What harm to have Computerised polling machines and you get a printout and sign it after you've voted to acknowledge its correct, you then deposit it in a standard vote box, and the hard copies are audited on a random sample basis covering say manual counts of 25% of the constituencies, to ensure correctness.

Signatures on ballots?

It would help to be familiar with all the requirements of voting, including guaranteed anonymity, before deciding that computerised voting would be easy to implement.

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

When they experimented with the machines (Meath East 2007??) I thought it was very anticlimatic the way the result of all the seats was just announced.

It wasn't just anticlimactic, it was probably wrong. Firstly, Nora Owen lost her seat - that was utterly unexpected, and wasn't predicted by any of the polls in advance of the election. Worse again, the number of votes counted by the voting machines was substantially different from the number of votes cast as reported by the polling stations.

Was the count right? We'll never know. A recount was requested, so they pushed the "count" button on the machine and it reported the same result.

Electronic voting is a Bad Idea.

ArmaniJeanss

Inquitus wrote: »

But then, we have a few recounts, and with less than 100 votes in the differences across a manual human count, how can you be sure you actually get the right answer?

I'm willing to accept the multiple recounts and the possibility that the winning candidate may have to be decided by the counting teams (or indeed ultimately a judges) interpretation of some poorly filled in ballot papers.
It is, imo, a price worth paying for the spectacle we get to see over the weekend of the count. The excitement of the count in for example Dublin Central and seeing the way Maureen O'Sullivan slowly crept up on each count - that's something I want to keep.

I accept that you disagree and do see the merits in your point.

Inquitus

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

I'm willing to accept the multiple recounts and the possibility that the winning candidate may have to be decided by the counting teams (or indeed ultimately a judges) interpretation of some poorly filled in ballot papers.
It is, imo, a price worth paying for the spectacle we get to see over the weekend of the count. The excitement of the count in for example Dublin Central and seeing the way Maureen O'Sullivan slowly crept up on each count - that's something I want to keep.

I accept that you disagree and do see the merits in your point.

I like the drama, but I'd also like a bit more accuracy in the counting, many humans counting late into the night and a handful of ballots deciding the path of the election is my main issue with it. Not sure if a good compromise exists.

Sam Russell

Computerised counting.

Scan the ballot papers. Character recognition is used and an official agrees that the result is correct, and accepts it. With all ballots scanned, count begins - count by count. Results are returned count be count.

Difference is that true proportional voting could apply - once the rules are set.

Benefit is that the votes could be used by the various political depts in the various universities (as votes are anonymous). Much could be learnt from such studies - perhaps.