European Parliament Elections 2019

Christy42

golfball37 wrote: »

They overstated McHugh by 4% and Cuffe by 6%, even Grace O'Sullivan was overstated in South. Its very co-incidental imo.

Almost like the same error of overestimating how much a certain segment of the population will vote will overestimate the chances of candidates that segment tends to vote for. This is the most likely error. Looking for a scandal is just that. Trying to find something that is not there.

To answer another poster:
The greens did well. Mnw was always meant to be their hardest sell. Casey's results get brushed under the carpet because he just loses. Greens got a success (and likely 2). 17% in Dublin is a strong result. They will point to that as opposed to mnw. What will Casey point to? Hardly like Fianna Fail are going to not be a major candidate because they were behind him in mnw. They chalk it up as a loss and look to their other wins.

And on evoting: burden of proof of security is on those advocating the machines. Not those against.

I am not up to date on other countries. If you find them then feel free to suggest those ones. I had mentioned the combination approach before seems like a good one (machines read the votes) and seems doable. With paper votes they can be sampled to ensure the machines are working well.

rossie1977

Just Saying wrote: »

They did place a lot of emphasis on the MOE but Ming was predicted to get 10% which means anything between 6 and 14 % falls within the MOE which is an enormous range and still he didn't fall within it at 14.3%.

It renders them useless in fields whereby lots of candidates get a similiar % of the polls.If one is out by 4.3% it means others will be more likely to be well out also.

To be fair 10% is any number between 9.5% and 10.4% so Ming at 14.3% is still within margin of error.

Just Saying

Christy42 wrote: »

Almost like the same error of overestimating how much a certain segment of the population will vote will overestimate the chances of candidates that segment tends to vote for. This is the most likely error. Looking for a scandal is just that. Trying to find something that is not there.

To answer another poster:
The greens did well. Mnw was always meant to be their hardest sell. Casey's results get brushed under the carpet because he just loses. Greens got a success (and likely 2). 17% in Dublin is a strong result. They will point to that as opposed to mnw. What will Casey point to? Hardly like Fianna Fail are going to not be a major candidate because they were behind him in mnw. They chalk it up as a loss and look to their other wins.

And on evoting: burden of proof of security is on those advocating the machines. Not those against.

I am not up to date on other countries. If you find them then feel free to suggest those ones. I had mentioned the combination approach before seems like a good one (machines read the votes) and seems doable. With paper votes they can be sampled to ensure the machines are working well.

You have missed my point totally.

Just Saying

rossie1977 wrote: »

To be fair 10% is any number between 9.5% and 10.4% so Ming at 14.3% is still within margin of error.

Not true.The 4% is supposed to cover this.

crossman47

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

No, there was clearly a problem with the poll - they oversampled young vs. old, or urban vs. rural, or something like that.


But it is just a poll, no-one loses a single vote over it.

Somebody has mentioned that they poll people leaving the voting station so those on foot (Greens?) are more likely to be polled. Also those who know their statistics will know the 4% margin of error applies to 19 out of 20 polls. Maybe this was the 20th, a real outlier. Either way they are only an indication and the way an exit poll can be off shows how far off an opinion poll can potentially be.

markodaly

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Again, so what? The Euro candidates won't take up their seats until 2nd of July, there is no rush.

You are trying to solve a non problem by blowing huge money on a voting system which will be taken from secure storage every few years, dusted off, have software patches applied, get deployed, connected and tested, to be used for one day and then put back into storage.

An utter waste, even without the security and transparency worries.

Yes, that is why there is no e-voting anywhere else in the world. Sure what do Canadians or Australians or Finns know about voting?


On a serious note, it has always struck me odd that we are soooooo resistant to any change as a nation.
E-voting would be one example. Even mentioning the fact that the process could be sped up somewhat is met with calls of the 'so what' or a 'sure its grand'.

This is the actual attitude that holds us back as a nation tbh. We are so inward looking and parochial with some things.

Lets talk about voting early, or postal voting for everyone?
What about rights for Irish residents living abroad... again its met with the usual ignorant retorts.

Rinse repeats... again, 'ah sure its grand..'.. lets vote for FF/FG forever...

SirGerryAdams

fricatus wrote: »

I'd add to that that it standardises the methodologies for delivering win-win outcomes.

Also it decentralizes the traditional database resulting in the eradication of systematic downturn transactional errors.

Rebelbrowser

From the Irish Examiner

"Update 11.30am: The race for seats in Ireland South has heated up as Labour candidate Shelia Nunan and Fine Gael's Andrew Doyle have both been eliminated in the 15th count.

Mick Wallace, who has been mopping up significant transfers, gained 5,545 votes from the distribution of Solidarity PBP candidate Adrienne Wallace's votes. If he continues on this track he could be elected in the next count when Ms Nunan's and Mr Doyle's votes are distributed. This would see him pip Fianna Fáil's Billy Kelleher for the second seat in Europe.

The counting of votes in the next round is now expected to take several hours, but the two eliminations will speed the process up.

Poll-topper Sean Kelly was re-elected to the European Parliament yesterday afternoon. However the race is still tight to fill the remaining four seats, the last of which will not be filled until Britain leaves the EU.

Currently Indepdentes4Change TD Mr Wallace is leading the pack with 95,780 followed by Mr Kelleher on 89,036 votes.

Sinn Féin's Liadh Ní Riada currently has 87,322 votes, Green Party candidate Grace O'Sullivan has 84,741 votes while outgoing Fine Gael MEP Deirdre Clune is on 69,560.

However, Ms Clune is expected to gain significant transfers from party colleague Mr Doyle..."

golfball37

The delays counting South and MNW are getting to embarrassing levels now at this stage. Its 5 days since we voted.

markodaly

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

It proactively leverages the key indicators of the fundamental technology going forward.

It was a serious question.

Blockchain technology is viewed at changing peer to peer transactions and securing it in ways not thought possible before.
eVoting is one such application for such technology.

https://cointelegraph.com/news/south-korean-government-to-test-blockchain-use-for-e-voting-system

markodaly

From IEEE themselves.

https://blockchain.ieee.org/images/files/pdf/blockchain-e-voting2018.pdf

Fan of Netflix

Was following Gavan Reillys excel sheet but he has wrong figures.

Accurate A Wallace transfers here:
https://twitter.com/Elaine_Loughlin/status/1133676660170088448

cruizer101

The elimination of two candidates together should speed it up a bit, although I would have been curious to see the distribution of each of their transfers.

SirGerryAdams

cruizer101 wrote: »

The elimination of two candidates together should speed it up a bit, although I would have been curious to see the distribution of each of their transfers.

Why do they eliminate two at once? Is it because even if the bottom candidate transferred all their votes to 2nd last, they wouldn't overtake 3rd last?

marno21

SirGerryAdams wrote: »

Why do they eliminate two at once? Is it because even if the bottom candidate transferred all their votes to 2nd last, they wouldn't overtake 3rd last?

The 2 candidates eliminated have a combined vote total lower than the 3rd lowest candidate. Nunan + Doyle < Clune effectively

Rebelbrowser

marno21 wrote: »

The 2 candidates eliminated have a combined vote total lower than the 3rd lowest candidate. Nunan + Doyle < Clune effectively

Means there are 67,000+ votes being redistributed now. That could change things!

L1011

SirGerryAdams wrote: »

Why do they eliminate two at once? Is it because even if the bottom candidate transferred all their votes to 2nd last, they wouldn't overtake 3rd last?

Yes. I've seen five eliminated at once in a GE when there was 5 on <200 and the next lowest had >1000. There were two eliminated at once in MNW yesterday

The only exception would be if a candidate could reach the quarter quota for their deposit / expenses by getting transfers even if it can't catch them up

Just Saying

SirGerryAdams wrote: »

Why do they eliminate two at once? Is it because even if the bottom candidate transferred all their votes to 2nd last, they wouldn't overtake 3rd last?

That's correct.

This count will tell a lot.66k votes between Doyle and Nunan.Clune needs 15k plus more than O Sullivan to pass her and 17K more than Ni Riada to pass her.It's a big ask for Clune with both candidates (Doyle and Nunan) being a long way geographically from her.

AndrewJRenko

Jupiter Mulligan wrote: »

SNIP. The sarcasm is not welcome here.

No, I wouldn't ask Gemma. I'd ask people who make a living on IT security, like Daragh O'Brien

https://twitter.com/CBridge_Chief/status/1133683573117075456?s=19

AndrewJRenko

markodaly wrote: »

Ah, sure it will be grand...

Nail on head on the many things wrong with the nation there my friend.

I am not being smart but are we the only EU nation still counting votes?

So no answer to the 'so what' question then? Let me try again - what specific problem arises from a count taking 5 or 7 days.

It's an important prerequisite for any IT project to have a clear definition of what problem you are trying to solve - what is the problem here?

robman60

Clune has huge ground to make up but I'd expect her to take a majority from both candidates. Doyle could end up giving a substantial chunk to Byrne because of the geographical factor and that could scupper things for her. There was a point made during the debates that last term, the representation (if you can include Crowley in that, which you really can't) was all Cork except for Kelly. I wonder if that will have much sway to the Wexford candidates. I suspect it could have just enough to spoil things for Clune but it's really tough to call.

Laois_Man

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Yes, we are a laughing stock in the 21st century with our stupid auld pencils.

Nonsense

Loads of places manually count votes

It's just that most places didn't have local elections + referendum papers + plebiscite papers (in some places) all to count from one day of polling

Plus many places have a FPTP system and only need 1 count

AndrewJRenko

markodaly wrote: »

I asked this the other day, but has there been any actual proof that e-voting machines in an OECD country had been maliciously tampered with by a 3rd party?

I have read about issues with random errors and variances here and there, due to human errors in the software, but I have not heard of an election being 'hacked'. Too much Russian hacking stories going around, taken as gospel by people who don't really know.

And it was explained to you the other day that this question nicely encapsulates the core difficulty of eVoting - electronic bits and bytes can be changed without leaving evidence. That's the huge danger that we're dealing with here.

Zubeneschamali

Laois_Man wrote: »

Nonsense

Loads of places manually count votes

That wasn't my opinion, it was a quote from Bertie Aherne about why we needed eVoting machines back in 2007.

AndrewJRenko

SirGerryAdams wrote: »

Regarding evoting and potential tampering. What's to stop someone making votes disappear at the count centre?

Theres so many people and movement I'd say it could be done.

And if you REALLY wanted to go the full hog - go in to vote, take some other papers with you and fold them up and pretend to deposit them in the box.

Take the real ballot home, photocopy it. Have a stamp and ink.

Then when you're counting on counting day slip them into the pile.

I've never been at a count so maybe it's not that easy.

Apart from the fact that it could be hard to 'slip them into the pile' when every stage of the count is scrutinised by very interested tallymen leaning over the barrier?

How would you know what box you're going to end up counting? Because each box has a different stamp pattern.

And what happens when the total number of votes counted exceeds the number sorted when the box was opened? Or the number of papers issued at that table?

Exactly how many papers do you think you can slip in without being noticed?

Laois_Man

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

And it was explained to you the other day that this question nicely encapsulates the core difficulty of eVoting - electronic bits and bytes can be changed without leaving evidence. That's the huge danger that we're dealing with here.

With Blockchain technology, they can't be (although you never know what might be possible with future quantum computing capabilities)

Laois_Man

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

That wasn't my opinion, it was a quote from Bertie Aherne about why we needed eVoting machines back in 2007.

I failed to cop that - apologies!

normanoffside

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

No, there was clearly a problem with the poll - they oversampled young vs. old, or urban vs. rural, or something like that.


But it is just a poll, no-one loses a single vote over it.

I’d imagine it’s just a case of Green voters being more likely to tell a pollster who they have voted for.
Kind of like the old joke about vegans....

SirGerryAdams

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Apart from the fact that it could be hard to 'slip them into the pile' when every stage of the count is scrutinised by very interested tallymen leaning over the barrier?

How would you know what box you're going to end up counting? Because each box has a different stamp pattern.

And what happens when the total number of votes counted exceeds the number sorted when the box was opened? Or the number of papers issued at that table?

Exactly how many papers do you think you can slip in without being noticed?

All true. As I said I've never been at a count.

Who brings the ballots to the centre? Guards? Couldn't they be bought?

AndrewJRenko

markodaly wrote: »

Yes, that is why there is no e-voting anywhere else in the world. Sure what do Canadians or Australians or Finns know about voting?


On a serious note, it has always struck me odd that we are soooooo resistant to any change as a nation.
E-voting would be one example. Even mentioning the fact that the process could be sped up somewhat is met with calls of the 'so what' or a 'sure its grand'.

This is the actual attitude that holds us back as a nation tbh. We are so inward looking and parochial with some things.

Lets talk about voting early, or postal voting for everyone?
What about rights for Irish residents living abroad... again its met with the usual ignorant retorts.

Rinse repeats... again, 'ah sure its grand..'.. lets vote for FF/FG forever...

This isn't "resistance to change". Like many other who resist eVoting, I make my living using technology to implement change.

This is resistance to pi$$ing away tens (or maybe hundreds) of millions of euros to solve a non-existent problem while simultaneously putting our future democracy in the hands of whoever can fund the best hacking team, while also enabling vote selling and duress voting.

It is a lose-lose-lose scenario.