European Parliament Elections 2019

markodaly

I was rounded on the other day for suggesting some sort of e-voting or automation in regards the vote count.
Here we are, 5 days later from the actual poll date and still 7 seats to fill.
This may go on till tomorrow....

Whatever about e-voting, surely there is a way to speed up the process or are we happy to have these counts go on for a guts of a week.

Christy42

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Exit polls set up narratives which turn out to be wrong from which fake truths are built. For example we had "a green wave", then we "didn't have a green wave" The fact is the Greens have done very well relative to their previous position but now the narrative is that they have partially failed and 'sure south Dublin would elect a green wouldn't they?' when the it's clear that many did cast a vote for the Greens around much of the country.

On a long list alphabetic listing means candidates who are secondary status or new names to the contest but called Williams rather than Adams are at a disadvantage.

I agree on the ballot.

However exit polls are normally pretty good. Certainly they messed up here. I imagine all parties have been doing their own polling anyway.

Having said all that. Do they really bring much except a bit of intrigue? I mean it is just a slightly early indication. Is there a benefit to having a good idea of the results slightly early? I love polls cos I like numbers (and indeed even with this one I would love to know the exact error, I have a decent guess but not details) but maybe there is not much benefit outside of that.

SirGerryAdams

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Can you explain how the BAI (Dept. of Communications) can give money to RTÉ when the licence fee is the purview of An Post?

"Where does your licence fee go?"

It goes to the Department of Communications, Climate Action and Environment, who provide approximately 85% to RTÉ to carry it out its Public Service Media commitments.

A further 7% is paid to the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland for the operation of the Broadcasting Funding Scheme, TG4 also receives €4.25m per annum and An Post is also paid approximately 6% of the fee in respect of TV licence collection activities.

The licence fee is only one form of funding. RTE get funding from the budget of Richard Brutons department.

VinLieger

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Exit polls set up narratives which turn out to be wrong from which fake truths are built. For example we had "a green wave", then we "didn't have a green wave" The fact is the Greens have done very well relative to their previous position but now the narrative is that they have partially failed and 'sure south Dublin would elect a green wouldn't they?' when the it's clear that many did cast a vote for the Greens around much of the country.

There is no reason you have given for them to be made illegal though

Harry Palmr wrote: »

On a long list alphabetic listing means candidates who are secondary status or new names to the contest but called Williams rather than Adams are at a disadvantage.

Give me another way to do it that doesn't have an equal if not larger bias towards candidates in some way

L1011

VinLieger wrote: »

Give me another way to do it that doesn't have an equal if not larger bias

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robson_Rotation

odyssey06

markodaly wrote: »

I was rounded on the other day for suggesting some sort of e-voting or automation in regards the vote count.
Here we are, 5 days later from the actual poll date and still 7 seats to fill.
This may go on till tomorrow....

Whatever about e-voting, surely there is a way to speed up the process or are we happy to have these counts go on for a guts of a week.

Someone suggested not exactly e-voting (by the voters), but that at the count center they should scan in the paper votes to an electronic system?

is_that_so

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Exit polls set up narratives which turn out to be wrong from which fake truths are built. For example we had "a green wave", then we "didn't have a green wave" The fact is the Greens have done very well relative to their previous position but now the narrative is that they have partially failed and 'sure south Dublin would elect a green wouldn't they?' when the it's clear that many did cast a vote for the Greens around much of the country.

On a long list alphabetic listing means candidates who are secondary status or new names to the contest but called Williams rather than Adams are at a disadvantage.

No they didn't really unless you took them as gospel but they made people wonder. In MNW , McHugh aside, they did show the lie of the land and the question still remained about where she could get transfers. As is clear she didn't have them. As for the locals well a 1%-2% swing is huge, especially for lower order seats. Candidates can get in on well under 1000 FPVs. In that context even a mini-surge in concert with a decline is SF and Indos worked in the Greens' favour.

FreudianSlippers

L1011 wrote: »

An Post collect the licence fee as a contractor; they don't control it in any way.

Yep. You're right.

My point was more that the BAI can say that RTÉ needs any additional amount of money, that does not mean that they can just take Dept. of Communications money and allocate it to RTÉ - their funding is constrained by the amount of licence fee raised by An Post.

is_that_so

odyssey06 wrote: »

Someone suggested not exactly e-voting (by the voters), but that at the count center they should scan in the paper votes to an electronic system?

Hmm! Scanning 1m+ pieces of paper? Be quicker counting them.

FreudianSlippers

SirGerryAdams wrote: »

The licence fee is only one form of funding. RTE get funding from the budget of Richard Brutons department.

Source required.

FreudianSlippers

I don't get all the hate for e-voting or, at the very least, machine-readable methods of voting

Christy42

odyssey06 wrote: »

Someone suggested not exactly e-voting (by the voters), but that at the count center they should scan in the paper votes to an electronic system?

McHugh suggested it when asked if they would like e voting to skip the waiting period.

Likely a decent idea. Counters could take samples to ensure it is working correctly.

Main issue is spoilt/unreadable votes. They can all be spit out and done by hand. So each round would need to be done 1 at a time but each round should be done in under an hour.

is_that_so

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I don't get all the hate for e-voting or, at the very least, machine-readable methods of voting

E-voting machines can be manipulated. Bear in mind most of Saturday was just separating and sorting, which would still need to be done in any circumstance.

AndrewJRenko

markodaly wrote: »

I was rounded on the other day for suggesting some sort of e-voting or automation in regards the vote count.
Here we are, 5 days later from the actual poll date and still 7 seats to fill.
This may go on till tomorrow....

Whatever about e-voting, surely there is a way to speed up the process or are we happy to have these counts go on for a guts of a week.

So what? I'm not being smart, but what problem arises from the count taking 5 days or more?

AndrewJRenko

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I don't get all the hate for e-voting or, at the very least, machine-readable methods of voting

The hate for eVoting arises from the lack of certainty that the vote entered is the vote counted.

Rebelbrowser

Bit of a broken record here but the lack of reporting on Ireland South is unbelieveable. RTE's (meagre) online coverage is all about the midlands north west consitituency. On the news this morning RTE just called out those coming 1 to 5 in the Ireland South vote (only one elected so far, no one else anywhere near) and suggested those 5 would take the seats - eventhough there is a strong chance one of 6 or 7 will overtake. Not wanting to be one of those guys but if this was a Dublin constituency do you think they would be treating it like this?

is_that_so

One option might be doing it based on a list system instead for the Euros. Quicker, not as much fun and maybe not as representative but given the predicted MEPs, in advance of the election, have panned out there's not a lot lost.

odyssey06

Rebelbrowser wrote: »

Bit of a broken record here but the lack of reporting on Ireland South is unbelieveable. RTE's (meagre) online coverage is all about the midlands north west consitituency. On the news this morning RTE just called out those coming 1 to 5 in the Ireland South vote (only one elected so far, no one else anywhere near) and suggested those 5 would take the seats - eventhough there is a strong chance one of 6 or 7 will overtake. Not wanting to be one of those guys but if this was a Dublin constituency do you think they would be treating it like this?

If the count centre wasn't in D4, maybe.

charlie14

markodaly wrote: »

I was rounded on the other day for suggesting some sort of e-voting or automation in regards the vote count.
Here we are, 5 days later from the actual poll date and still 7 seats to fill.
This may go on till tomorrow....

Whatever about e-voting, surely there is a way to speed up the process or are we happy to have these counts go on for a guts of a week.

I have nothing against e-voting other than I like numbers and have enjoyed being able to follow elections count by count with the present system.
The only argument I can really put forward for maintaining the present system is that there is a lot of apathy nowadays when it comes to voting. Among those that look on voting this way an instant result would get nothing more than a shrug of the shoulders, whereas with the present system and the coverage it generate some of those might be more inclined to vote by seeing just how transfers can effect an election.

VinLieger

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

So what? I'm not being smart, but what problem arises from the count taking 5 days or more?

Im wondering the same thing, personally I enjoy the drama and the theorising of who's transfers will go where.

is_that_so

Rebelbrowser wrote: »

Bit of a broken record here but the lack of reporting on Ireland South is unbelieveable. RTE's (meagre) online coverage is all about the midlands north west consitituency. On the news this morning RTE just called out those coming 1 to 5 in the Ireland South vote (only one elected so far, no one else anywhere near) and suggested those 5 would take the seats - eventhough there is a strong chance one of 6 or 7 will overtake. Not wanting to be one of those guys but if this was a Dublin constituency do you think they would be treating it like this?

Probably no news on it. The Dublin count was a lot faster and the first two seats filled quickly. Since the 1st count MNW has been three hours between them. I'm guessing that South is probably more than that and there seem to be a whole lot more permutations.

micosoft

Matt Barrett wrote: »

That's a cynical wording though, very Yes Minister in itself.
You can only be very general with such questions because we don't know what form prioritising may take. It could just as easily be grants for solar power installation etc. TBF it will likely be FG charging taxes to spend on god knows in the name of the environment, (see Siteserv sweet deal).

That was the point - so let's agree both are cynical. That's what manifesto's are for. My issue is that all the RTE questions led to a particular response.
It will require lot's of different interventions but I find it ironic that the gilets jaunes in France were kicked off by Carbon taxes.

At it's heart is the electorate need to start taking responsibility and accountability and we continue to create this toxic culture of zero tradeoff's. The Greens were wiped out a couple of years ago don't forget by the very same electorate.

odyssey06

charlie14 wrote: »

Whereas with the present system and the coverage it generate some of those might be more inclined to vote by seeing just how transfers can effect an election.

That's a good point, until you've seen how transfers affect the outcome through the counts, you don't have a full appreciation of what you are doing filling in your ballot.

Although it's gone on so long at this stage I think now it's in danger of losing people's interest through being so drawn out... the Euro constituencies are so huge if not a list system, then limit the STV to a 1st and 2nd preference.

Jupiter Mulligan

SNIP. The sarcasm is not welcome here.

VinLieger

odyssey06 wrote: »

That's a good point, although it's gone on so long at this stage I think now it's in danger of losing people's interest through being so drawn out... the Euro constituencies are so huge if not a list system, then limit the STV to a 1st and 2nd preference.

This year was a special case with all the nutjobs jumping on the bandwagon, Id be surprised if we saw ballot lists that length again especially after all of them are now out of pocket 5k

swampgas

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I don't get all the hate for e-voting or, at the very least, machine-readable methods of voting

Bruce Schneier, a respected security expert, has written a number of blog articles and essays about electronic voting down through the years. Usually from a US perspective, but a lot of what he writes applies here to.

You can find a selection of his articles here:
https://www.schneier.com/essays/elections/

Maybe one of the most relevant is this article, Voting Security, from 2004.
https://www.schneier.com/essays/archives/2004/07/voting_security.html

To quote from it (my bold):

The solution is simplicity. The fewer the translation steps, the fewer errors. Handwritten ballots are simply more accurate than computerized systems because there are fewer translation steps. Many European countries use paper ballots. But Europe doesn't hold dozens of different elections on the same day, as the US does. And Europeans don't demand final results before bedtime on election day, as do US citizens. Paper ballots might win on accuracy, but they fail on scalability and speed.

For something like elections, surely we should prioritise accuracy and transparency over speed? A few days finalising the count is pretty irrelevent for positions that will be held for years.

I have a background in electronics, IT and telecoms, and my day job is in cyber security. I know how easy it can be to hack e-voting in ways that are impossible to detect. I'm very happy to stick to the paper based system we have today, it's pretty hard to beat in terms of accuracy and transparency.

Gael23

Nothing beats the suspense of an election count. Evoting would ruin that.

odyssey06

VinLieger wrote: »

This year was a special case with all the nutjobs jumping on the bandwagon, Id be surprised if we saw ballot lists that length again especially after all of them are now out of pocket 5k

You could be right, on the other hand, relying on a shortage of nutjobs, or ahem overly optimistic candidates, may not be a safe bet either

charlie14

VinLieger wrote: »

This year was a special case with all the nutjobs jumping on the bandwagon, Id be surprised if we saw ballot lists that length again especially after all of them are now out of pocket 5k

I found it a bit amusing that in an election that has generated so much publicity on Green issues, the nutjobs were responsible for a large forest of paper wasted.

Zubeneschamali

Jupiter Mulligan wrote: »

Absolutely! Everyone knows for a fact that the clowns who can't run the HSE or budget properly for a National Childrens' Hospital or National Broadband Scheme are well capable of running an e-voting scam that would ensure that they remain in power for the next thousand years!

E-voting fans are sure that these same eejits can spec, commission and run an e-voting system which is secure from cyberattacks. They are wrong.

The current system is slow, but completely transparent and very, very secure, and there is no benefit, none, to getting a result in an hour vs. a week.

It ain't broke.