Electoral Register could damage referendum integrity

Cookie_Monster

Peregrinus wrote: »

Bob24 wrote: »

I assume it means they if you were to drive around you could vote 3 times.

It is really silly that we don’t have a process to ensure someone is only able to vote at one polling station.

Sounds like it should be elections 101 type of stuff ... if that can’t even be guaranteed how can we fully trust the integrity of any vote in this country?

This is a feature, not a bug. If you're a student, for example, how are you expected to predict whether elections will be held during term, when you are in college, or during vacations, when you are at home? You want to be registered in both constituencies, and that's allowed.

It's not like you only get a days notice... it's easy to arrange to be where you need to be given the massive notice given

thelad95

EdgeCase wrote: »

If you know someone doing that would you please report them to the Gardai. It’s effectively someone who’s undermining the democratic process and they fully deserve to be investigated and charged if necessary.

All well and good in theory but the Gardaí won’t do anything about it, in fact they’ the ones who have to sign forms to register voters, you think they don’t already have an idea that this happens?

This electoral fraud has been going on for decades and will continue to do so until they move away from this antiquated rubbish.

Bob24

Peregrinus wrote: »

This is a feature, not a bug. If you're a student, for example, how are you expected to predict whether elections will be held during term, when you are in college, or during vacations, when you are at home? You want to be registered in both constituencies, and that's allowed.

Doesn’t matter whether you call it a bad feature or a bug. No electoral system should allow for the same person to vote twice. That is just madness, if you want to be able to garantee the integrity of a vote the process can’t rely on people not doing it because they are nice (given what is at stake there is so much pressure for fraud at any major election in any country).

I’d say most other Europeans wouldn’t believe it if they were told it was allowed by the voting process here (I am talking as someone who has been a voter in Ireland and in another country where this would never be accepted).

On student votes, they manage fine in other countries without being able to vote in multiple locations. And while they could be expected to plan ahead, I’m not saying screw them - a few options could be considered to facilitate them: proxy vote, secure postal vote, etc.

But to me nothing which compromises the integrity of the election is an acceptable solution.

thelad95

Peregrinus wrote: »

This is a feature, not a bug. If you're a student, for example, how are you expected to predict whether elections will be held during term, when you are in college, or during vacations, when you are at home? You want to be registered in both constituencies, and that's allowed.

Jesus, it is a bug, it means people can add do vote multiple times. We don’t live in Russia, where people might have to traipse across Siberia too get to their home address. The referendum date was given months in advance and you have time to update your address to where you will be. You should not then be allowed to get a bus ‘home’ and vote again and hey while you’re at it, why not ring up your old landlord and get another polling card. Three for the price of one and three ‘legitimate’ votes cast and there’s zero way of telling that you fiddled the system.

fergus1001

dublinbuster wrote:

Yes campaign getting worried? Getting in excuses for loosing early?

If anyone is to be worried it would be the no camp turnout is reaching 20% already and that's before the main batch comes in after work this evening. large young vote being noted too

Hitman3000

dublinbuster wrote:

Yes campaign getting worried? Getting in excuses for loosing early?

You really think it's going to be No? That's nice.

oscarBravo

Peregrinus wrote: »

Sticking with the electoral register for a moment, there's a difference between changing the system to as to minimise opportunities for fraudulent or irregular voting, on the one hand, and changing the system so as to ensure that entitled voters do get to vote. You don't have to think too hard to realise that measures designed to support one objective can tend to undermine the other, and vice versa, so you need to decide which is your priority.

I think that's a false dichotomy that could perhaps be addressed by considering it a single problem - ensure that every entitled voter has the opportunity to cast at most one valid vote - rather than two conflicting problems - ensure that every voter gets to vote, and ensure that no fraudulent votes are cast.

On the one hand we have plently of anecdotal evidence about people who are entitled to vote but can't, either because the procedures are inadequate, or because they didn't know about the procedures, or because the procedure just failed to work. On the other hand, we have plently of anecdotal evidence about peole who aren't entitled to vote, but can (and in some cases do). But, because the evidence on both sides is anecdotal, we have no way of knowing how widespread either problem really is, or which occurs the more frequently.

Again, it seems obvious to me that a better-designed voter registration process could address both problems.

EdgeCase wrote: »

I’m not convinced the Irish general public is quite as illogical and put off by efficient management of systems as some people would have you think.

In fact, I find Irish people are quite impressed with smooth running state services and generally get annoyed with unaccountable, illogical bureaucracy eg aspects of the health services immediately spring to mind.

Many of the more modern and better designed Irish state services are excellent and a breeze to use. It’s just the electoral register is something that’s a bit of a relic from a bygone age of quills and stamps.

You can also create systems that are logical, transparent and safe without draconian measures.

You may be right. I'm unwell at the moment, and always at my crankiest and most cynical when I'm unwell. But I'm not convinced we're capable of having a rational conversation about properly integrated government services; I think it will always come down to "do you trust the government?", which is such a stupidly moot question on a great many levels that it serves very little purpose other than to shut down debate.

Varik

Does the electoral registry or any government data base fall under GPRD?

Owryan

Bob24 wrote: »

I assume it means they if you were to drive around you could vote 3 times.

It is really silly that we don’t have a process to ensure someone is only able to vote at one polling station.

Sounds like it should be elections 101 type of stuff ... if that can’t even be guaranteed how can we fully trust the integrity of any vote in this country?

Yep, pretty much. They were for three different polling stations.

Wouldn't mind only this is not the first time this has happened

Bob24

Varik wrote: »

Does the electoral registry or any government data base fall under GPRD?

GDPR.

Depends what you mean by “fall under GDPR”.

Do they fall into the scope of the regulation? I’d say so.
Does the regulation impose changes on the way we organise elections? I’d say not.

Owryan

I think one of the issues is that until elections/referendums are approaching noone really cares about the register. It relies on people to update it and that's the main problem. People forget, don't care or are not bothered.

I took the time and effort to update my details yet still got multiple polling cards, and like I said earlier my neighbours daughter is included in the register by her parents despite living abroad for 20 years, oh and they also include her in the census despite it being wrong.

Victor

daheff wrote: »

And incompetent. I've moved house in the last year. I've sent in a properly filled out & stamped form (RFA3) for the address change only to be told that they dont update addresses within the same polling area for edited register -despite the RFA 3 stating

So now I have no polling card nor do I have ID with the old address on it (where I'm allegedly registered).

With most forms of ID, you don't need proof of address.

riffmongous

Just on the central register post issue, in Austria you have a main residence and you can also have additional secondary ones, so if you are staying somewhere for a few weeks you are supposed to register there. I'm pretty sure they don't intercept post as I still get private business letters addressed to the previous tenant. but all government and local government mail goes to your main registered address.

jimmycrackcorm

Peregrinus wrote:

Well, there is a real civil liberties issue. If you have a complete register of where everybody lives, linked with other government records like immigration, drivers licenses, births deaths and marriages, etc, that gives the state an extraordinary degree of insight into private lives. Want a list of all the Arab men who live in such-and-such a neighbourhood with local women who are not their wives, plus their photgraphs, and details of the cars that each of them drives? Here you go! Oh, look, this one is HIV-positive. I wonder has he told his girlfriend?

A big jump from driving licence to HIV partners.

The government is barely able to clamp down on welfare fraud despite linking revenue and DSP data.

Minister

I was speaking with a person, yesterday evening, who had voted twice. Name on the register in two bordering constituencies. Just showed ID in one and a bill in the other. No polling card for either. Limerick and Tipperary areas.

dubrov

I get sent two polling cards at different addresses each election. I am certain both would work.
I never even registered for the second one but my address must have been pulled from my revenue record.

Nither myself or my wife were asked for ID

That is crazy. What if I found my housemates, friends, family members polling card and just rocked up with it

Minister

Deleted User wrote: »

Nither myself or my wife were asked for ID

That is crazy. What if I found my housemates, friends, family members polling card and just rocked up with it

No bother!!!

Wouldn't it be very simple and prevent electoral fraud if everyone used their PPS card which was scanned against a national register. And before some cry
'Big Brother' the state already can tell who voted and who didn't as your name is crossed off the register at the polling booth when you vote.

Minister

Minister wrote: »

No bother!!!

Wouldn't it be very simple and prevent electoral fraud if everyone used their PPS card which was scanned against a national register. And before some cry
'Big Brother' the state already can tell who voted and who didn't as your name is crossed off the register at the polling booth when you vote.

Yes, but what if I was to use their votes before they voted, without them knowing. Then they turn up to vote and are told that their name has already been crossed off the list.

It was real amateur hour not checking IDs

Minister

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes, but what if I was to use their votes before they voted, without them knowing. Then they turn up to vote and are told that their name has already been crossed off the list.

It was real amateur hour not checking IDs

Indeed. That is why I suggested using ones PPS card and if the PPS card is lost it should be reported etc etc.

(In general Ireland is 'amateur hour' - as you say - in so many ways. That is sometimes useful and nice! However that is for another thread........)

Minister

Minister wrote: »

Indeed. That is why I suggested using ones PPS card and if the PPS card is lost it should be reported etc etc.

(In general Ireland is 'amateur hour' - as you say - in so many ways. That is sometimes useful and nice! However that is for another thread........)

Sorry misunderstood :-)

testicles

This post has been deleted.

Bob24

testicles wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

And presidential elections. But I've heard of several Brits who have been allowed to vote for these.

Also I personally know several non-Irish and non-British EU citizens who have received polling cards for Dáil elections (at which they are not entitled to vote).


The register seems like it is a mess :-s

blanch152

Somehow, given the result, I don't think the electoral register damaged the referendum integrity.

Bob24

blanch152 wrote: »

Somehow, given the result, I don't think the electoral register damaged the referendum integrity.

Did it change the final outcome? Probably not.

Did it damage the integrity of this referendum and will it damage the one of any vote to come? Yes.

So there is no doubt it can't be used be disappointed voters this time to challenge the result of the vote.

But this particular referendum was never important related to the issues with the register (at least to me): it is a very important matter for every election and should should be looked at seriously.

Jim2007

Peregrinus wrote: »

I'm sceptical that the Danes do this but, if they do, I think it's a pretty textbook example of a Bad Idea.

The Swiss do the same and yes of course it works. A mail delivered the next morning and B mail a day later. Put a wrong name on an address and it will be redirected if you have indicated that is what you want, otherwise it is returned to sender. Voting papers are sent to your registered address. You complete them at home and then drop them the box at the polling station. Just because you have not experienced the system does not mean it does not work.

Water John

We had Pat O'Connor Pat O'Connor voting and that was 30 years ago. Not fixed yet.

Charles Babbage

Minister wrote: »

Indeed. That is why I suggested using ones PPS card and if the PPS card is lost it should be reported etc etc.

(In general Ireland is 'amateur hour' - as you say - in so many ways. That is sometimes useful and nice! However that is for another thread........)

Indeed, and the Revenue could usefully look at those who vote who do not seem to be paying taxes.

Minister

Charles Babbage wrote: »

Indeed, and the Revenue could usefully look at those who vote who do not seem to be paying taxes.

Good idea,

(but a bit far for Ireland and a bit of effort for people employed in Revenue Commissioners I would contend)

Larbre34

Of more pressing concern, is people living outside the Country but coming 'home to vote', when many have been gone for more than 18 months and have no entitlement to do so. I would suggest both they and the folk that keep them registered at an Irish address are committing an offence. The 1992 Act and the whole electoral register need overhauling as one.

Bob24

Larbre34 wrote: »

Of more pressing concern, is people living outside the Country but coming 'home to vote', when many have been gone for more than 18 months and have no entitlement to do so. I would suggest both they and the folk that keep them registered at an Irish address are committing an offence. The 1992 Act and the whole electoral register need overhauling as one.

Personally I would start with making it clear multiple registrations are not allowed and tracking them down. Someone voting twice is a serious issue, and i can see obvious ways to fix the problem (for exemple nationally attribute a voting number to every citizen - ideally PPS numbers but create a new dedicated identifier if their is pushback - and then make it mandatory to be added to a register and give a national authority access to all registers to make sure the same number is not present multiple times)

On people living abroad, agreed it is also important to enforce the law, but I am not sure that rule was well thought through as it is hard to systematically enforce. i.e. how do you detect that someone has been abroad for over 18 months, does a visit of a few weeks to Ireland reset the counter, etc

Water John

An independent agency, thus people could trust the secrecy of the info, is required, as a starting point.

scorching hemorrhoids

Bob24 wrote: »

Someone voting twice is a serious issue,

Such innocence
just wait until the powers that be push hard for postal voting, now thats a serious issue, spend a minute or two researching the postal vote in the Scottish independence vote, absolutely shocking stuff

Bob24

scorching hemorrhoids wrote: »

Such innocence
just wait until the powers that be push hard for postal voting, now thats a serious issue, spend a minute or two researching the postal vote in the Scottish independence vote, absolutely shocking stuff

Why?

Because it happens doesn't mean it is innocent to say it is an issue and should be solved.

Personally I would not support postal vote either. If we want people are are not there on the day to have an option, we could have proxy voting with maximum one vote transferred to an individual, from someone who has to be on the same register and with serious ID check during the vote (it should work and be safe assuming the registers are all correct and don't have overlap, which goes back to the original point).

Peregrinus

Bob24 wrote: »

Personally I would not support postal vote either. If we want people are are not there on the day to have an option, we could have proxy voting with maximum one vote transferred to an individual, from someone who has to be on the same register and with serious ID check during the vote (it should work and be safe assuming the registers are all correct and don't have overlap, which goes back to the original point).

The problem with that is that it buggers up the secrecy of the ballot, since the absent voter has to tell someone else how he wants to vote. Plus, of course, there is no way the absent voter (or anyone else) can be certain that the proxy has actually voted as instructed.

A simpler and safer solution might be what they do in other countries; allow people to vote early if they will not be present on polling day.

Water John

The other side is, we must ensure that, we don't make the system so, that people can be, in any way discouraged fro voting. We have plenty of examples of that, in some USA States.
An expansion of the postal ballot should also be seriously considered, as said above.

Infini

If people are worried about the electorial register and it's integrity there is one way of ensuring that it's reasonably accurate in that everyone should have to reregister at least every 5-10 years after their initial registration or be automatically struck off. That would at least allow pruning of old names over time reasonably.

Bob24

Peregrinus wrote: »

The problem with that is that it buggers up the secrecy of the ballot, since the absent voter has to tell someone else how he wants to vote. Plus, of course, there is no way the absent voter (or anyone else) can be certain that the proxy has actually voted as instructed.

A simpler and safer solution might be what they do in other countries; allow people to vote early if they will not be present on polling day.

Sure you have to pick someone you trust both in terms of confidentiality and of voting as instructed. It is used in other countries and I don’t think it is a major issue (the main issue probably is that you have to be very carefully with your register and making sure proxy votes are setup by the legitimate voter, as if someone finds a way to fraudulently establish voting delegations they can easily have all the dead people which are inevitably on the registry for a period delegate their vote to someone else and no one will easily notice as there is no risk of the actually voter showing up).

How does early vote work in the countries what it is implemented? Safely storing the pending ballots while ensuring the process remains fully transparent for anyone who wants to check and making sure nothing is being tempered with must be a serious logistical challange.

Peregrinus

Bob24 wrote: »

Sure you have to pick someone you trust both in terms of confidentiality and of voting as instructed . . . .

Or somebody who threatens to beat you up if you don't nominate him as your proxy would work just as well.

Bob24 wrote: »

How does early vote work in the countries what it is implemented? Safely storing the pending ballots while ensuring the process remains fully transparent for anyone who wants to check and making sure nothing is being tempered with must be a serious logistical challenge.

I have voted early here in Australia. There's a central location in or near each constituency where you can go to vote early. It's open for a couple of weeks before polling day. Voting is exactly as normal and you put your vote into a ballot box, which is sealed and not opened until the count. Obviously you need secure arrangements to ensure that material can't be added to the ballot box overnight, but of course that issue arises with ordinary polling stations also, albeit just for one night. I don't know what those arrangements are, but its not beyond the wit of man to devise them.

Assisted voting is also permitted for voters who are blind or illiterate, but I think the assistant has to be one of the polling officials, not a "friend" of the voter. And the voter does have to attend the polling station.

There's also postal voting, but you need to prove a need for it. You can register as a standing postal voter if you are disabled or infirm, live in a very remote location, are in prison, etc. You'll then get a postal ballot at every election unless and until you deregister as a postal voter, when your circumstances change.

They also have mobile polling stations which visit hospitals, nursing homes, prisons, etc, so if you find yourself in hospital at short notice and haven't registered as a postal voter you can still vote.

Cookie_Monster

Peregrinus wrote: »

A simpler and safer solution might be what they do in other countries; allow people to vote early if they will not be present on polling day.

+1. This happens over here in NZ and is great, for example currently there is a by-election happening in one region and the dates allowed are as follows:

Wednesday 23 May Overseas voting starts
Monday 28 May Advance voting starts / EasyVote packs start arriving with voters
Friday 8 June Last day to enrol
Friday 8 June All political advertising ceases and election signs taken down by midnight
Saturday 9 June Election day for Northcote By-election / Voting places open from 9.00am to 7.00pm

Bob24

Peregrinus wrote: »

Or somebody who threatens to beat you up if you don't nominate him as your proxy would work just as well.

As I said it is in use in the countries and this doesn't seem to be a concern. But yes that is a valid point.

Peregrinus wrote: »

I have voted early here in Australia. There's a central location in or near each constituency where you can go to vote early. It's open for a couple of weeks before polling day. Voting is exactly as normal and you put your vote into a ballot box, which is sealed and not opened until the count. Obviously you need secure arrangements to ensure that material can't be added to the ballot box overnight, but of course that issue arises with ordinary polling stations also, albeit just for one night. I don't know what those arrangements are, but its not beyond the wit of man to devise them.

This process would be completely unacceptable to me.

With our current voting process I can as a citizen spend the whole day at my local polling station and personally keep an eye at the ballot box and at the way things are happening. Every citizen in every polling station has that opportunity, and added together this provides great popular oversight over the process and makes tempering with the process much harder (both for external entities and for someone within the public authority organising the vote).

The process you describe would break that citizen oversight as clearly no-one will be able to monitor the whole process.

Postal voting is even worse in terms of lack of transparency and reliability - it is what go an Austrian presidential election cancelled before - but this in my view is not that much better.


* we sometimes have overnight storage which I think is a problem and we should avoid it (especially for referendums, many countries can complete counting within 2-3 hours after the polling station close, so there is no need for storage), but at least it is usually just one night and there is no need to bring more tempering opportunities wit have more extended storage, rather to reduce them.

Peregrinus

Bob24 wrote: »

With our current voting process I can as a citizen spend the whole day at my local polling station and personally keep an eye at the ballot box and at the way things are happening*. Every citizen in every polling station has that opportunity, and added together this provides great popular oversight over the process and makes tempering with the process much harder (both for external entities and for someone within the public authority organising the vote).

The presiding officer can ask you to leave the polling station once you have voted - and will, if he thinks you are loitering. The candidates can appoint agents to represent them at polling places, but it's just not true that every citizen can hang around all day. (And, if if you could, you could only do that at one polling station; how would you know what's going on at any of the others?)

Bob24 wrote: »

The process you describe would break that oversight as clearly no-one will be able to monitor the whole process.

No one person can, obviously. But the candidates can appoint agents to represent them at the early voting station, and it's much easier to find a succession of people who will cover the station one at a time in shifts than it is to find a horde of people who will cover all the polling stations at the same time.

Bob24 wrote: »

Postal voting is even worse in terms of lack of transparency and reliability . . .

What risks does postal voting present that are avoided by proxy voting? Serious question. If a postal ballot can be intercepted and fraudulently comleted, a proxy appointment can equally be fraudulently completed. And if someone filling out the ballot at home and sending it off be post might be vulnerable to pressures or influence that would be avoided in a polling station well, that's equally true for someone filling out a proxy appointment at home. Plus proxy voting creates the added risk of even a genuinely and freely appointed proxy not implementing the voter's instructions. I don't see that proxy voting offers any advantages at all, to be honest.

Which countries allow it, that you know of?

Bob24 wrote: »

we sometimes have overnight storage which I think is a problem and would could avoid (especially for referendums, many countries can complete counting within 2-3 hours after the polling station close, so there is no need for storage), but at least it is usually just one night and there is no need to bring more tempering opportunities.

We always have overnight storage, since the count doesn't begin until the following day. And it's not only for one night; it's every night until the count is completed, which can take several days. And, of course, it's at multiple places.

wildwillow

My mother in law died more than 30 years ago and I still get a polling card for her which the postman delivers to my address. Her house has actually been demolished since and I live a distance away but within the postman’s route. I’ve updated the register several times and her husband was finally removed. Now my husband is still on the register three years after informing them about his death. Numbers of voters being incorrect upsets the quota calculation for Dail elections.

Peregrinus

wildwillow wrote: »

My mother in law died more than 30 years ago and I still get a polling card for her which the postman delivers to my address. Her house has actually been demolished since and I live a distance away but within the postman’s route. I’ve updated the register several times and her husband was finally removed. Now my husband is still on the register three years after informing them about his death. Numbers of voters being incorrect upsets the quota calculation for Dail elections.

No. The quota is calculated from the number of vacancies to be filled, and the number of valid ballots cast. The number of names on the register doesn't enter into the calculation.

wildwillow

OK, Peregrinus, thanks for clarifying that. I don't feel so bad now but will continue to try to get the register correct.

Minister

Peregrinus wrote: »

No. The quota is calculated from the number of vacancies to be filled, and the number of valid ballots cast. The number of names on the register doesn't enter into the calculation.

Right, but then is the amount of TD's per constituency based on number of people on the census or on the electoral register?

Peregrinus

Minister wrote: »

Right, but then is the amount of TD's per constituency based on number of people on the census or on the electoral register?

On the census.

The problem does affect the turnout figures, which SFAIK are calculated as a percentage of the names on the register.

Bob24

Peregrinus wrote: »

What risks does postal voting present that are avoided by proxy voting? Serious question. If a postal ballot can be intercepted and fraudulently comleted, a proxy appointment can equally be fraudulently completed. And if someone filling out the ballot at home and sending it off be post might be vulnerable to pressures or influence that would be avoided in a polling station well, that's equally true for someone filling out a proxy appointment at home. Plus proxy voting creates the added risk of even a genuinely and freely appointed proxy not implementing the voter's instructions. I don't see that proxy voting offers any advantages at all, to be honest.

Which countries allow it, that you know of?

In terms of risks:
- ballot envelops get intercepted by a third party or someone within the authority organising the vote, and destroyed/replaced/altered (not possible with proxy voting as the person who has a delegation votes directly at the polling station and personally puts the ballot paper in the ballot box as with any other voter).
- ballots get (voluntarily or not) counted ahead of time which can potentially influence/void the election (not possible with proxy voting as the proxy ballot is like any other one, in the ballot box until the end of the vote). Note this might seem silly but does happen and has indeed gone to the point that it voided a presidential election in Austria as the result was tight and those ballots could have changed the outcome.
- it requires extended storage of the ballot papers and the longer you store them the more opportunities you give for insiders and outsiders to temper with them (storage partly happens in Ireland anyway but for shorter periods than postal or advance votings would require, and this could be avoided st least in the case of referendums with better organisation - France for exemple has proxy voting and never stores uncounted ballot papers - they are always fully counted immediately after the end of the vote - in my view we should aim at reducing or suppressing our reliance on storing uncounted ballot papers, and certainly not make any step which would increase it)
- it breaks the transparency of the vote as no one can visually check who is putting ballots in the box (not a problem with proxy voting as there is always a physical person putting a ballot in the box and it can be called out on behalf of whom they are casting a vote as they are doing it since their delegation would be recorded in the registry and confirmed as they vote)

The main potential concerns with proxy voting are that it requires confidence between the person giving delegation and their delegate (which I personally don’t see as a problem - just pick someone your trust or don’t avail of the option if you trust no one - I personally would be 100% confident one of my parents or siblings would vote as I tell them to). And as you said there is a possible risks of coercion (and it is a valid point which I take seriously - but the same issue exists with postal vote, even more so as it is easier to do - when implemented well proxy voting would require the party giving delegation to go to a public office and sign an oath to confirm they are freely delegating their vote to a certain person).

But in terms of the process itself and ensuring that things are done by the books, the huge advantage of proxy voting is that once the delegation of voting power is established and trusted, a proxy vote is pretty much like any other vote at the polling station on the day of the election so it keeps the process safe and simple, whereas advance voting or postal voting are introducing a lot of logistical changes and challenges which are making it much harder (If even possible) to garantee the transparency and integrity of the process.

As mentioned above France would be an example of Western country where I know it has been used for a long time.

I’ll get back on your other points later as only have access to my phone to post and it’s all too long and serious to type on a phone! :-)

EdgeCase

wildwillow wrote: »

My mother in law died more than 30 years ago and I still get a polling card for her which the postman delivers to my address. Her house has actually been demolished since and I live a distance away but within the postman’s route. I’ve updated the register several times and her husband was finally removed. Now my husband is still on the register three years after informing them about his death. Numbers of voters being incorrect upsets the quota calculation for Dail elections.

Quota = {[valid votes cast/(no of seats+1)]}+1

The number of people on the register has no bearing on it whatsoever.

The population data from the census is used to calculate constituency sizes, not the electoral register.

An inflated register would, however, distort the turnout statistics and it could also cause some serious confusion for the courts, which use the register to find jurors. So, I would imagine if there are a lot of dead or gone away people on the register, the court service must be sending out a significant % of jury duty notices to which there is never going to be a response.

EdgeCase

The most obvious way of cleaning it up would be:

After every general election, identify all those people who didn't vote in that poll or the previous poll.
Write to them, asking them to respond to stay on the register.

All you'd need is a form that says:

"Are you still there?"

If you would like to maintain your voter registration, please sign and return this form within 90 days.

Then give them the option of retaining their registration, applying for a postal vote if they're eligible (disability, student away from home etc), blocking the publication fo their name on the register, or deleting themselves entirely for whatever reason.

Also give an option of reporting that a voter has gone away permanently or has died.

If you don't reply, you could be placed on a 'suspended register' for one subsequent election and then removed, if you never reply or show up.

If you were placed on the suspended register, the returning officer might have to verify your address and ensure you're actually still resident there and so on. There might be some extra validation of your details and then you'd be put back onto to the active register.

You also could run a check for people on the suspended register using name and DOB to see if they are on any other constituency's registers...