European Parliament Elections 2019

Laois_Man

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

That’s not a problem of the current paper system.

What benefit would arise from a new blockchain system? Show us the architecture that you're proposing?

Addressing some problem on the current system is not the problem I was addressing in my original post. It was your incorrect assertion that "electronic bits and bytes can be changed without leaving evidence" - which cannot (currently) happen with a Blockchain solution

This is not a new invention/architecture. It was proposed in the now very famous Satoshi Nakamoto paper in 2009. It's not re-inventing the wheel to apply it to voting

L1011

Danzy wrote: »

There are people from the Martin camp who have stopped talking to people in Kellihers camp who they were close friends with, bitter and personal words traded that I can't see a come back from.

It'll also damage canvassing in the future as both sides aren't going to help the other. There are now 2 structure in reality if not in name, for the same party.

We've got sort-of the same issue in Kildare North; not quite as vicious though. Yet. One TD has most of the Cllrs behind him and the other has, well, one I believe. One was very anti-repeal and I suspect the other supported it because of that!

Rebelbrowser

Laois_Man wrote: »

Clune must be a bit disappointed that she only got 20,183 transfers from Doyle's 41,416 plus Noonan's 25,958. I expected her to get a few thousand more which would have made a massive difference

Now the order of Seats 3 and 4 will probably change but looks to me like Ni Riada will hold out for the cold storage seat

Agree with that. Clune wont pass Ni Riada on this count. Her best bet is that Billy Kelleher does very well on FF transfers and has a decent surplus. A lot of that would be Cork middle class votes that will obviously favour Clune over Ni Riada. I'd say Ni Riada will win by 1,500 or something in the end though. Clune clearly got less than 50% of Doyle's surplus so Kelleher unlikely to do much better from Byrne

Just Saying

L1011 wrote: »

A really bad FF transfer leaving Kelleher in cold storage would be hilarious if incredibly unlikely now. Had there not been such extreme bad blood between them you'd not even think of it.

There's no chance of Kelleher being in the cold storage seat but if the transfer rate from Byrne is less than 30% he won't have a surplus to distribute.It should exceed 30% but with Wallace proving transfer friendly and geographically close to Byrne it might not exceed it by much.

Clune will be hoping Kelleher has a surplus to distribute as she would be likely to get more than Ni Roads from any distribution.

O Sullivan should manage to stay in front of the other two.

It is incredibly tight and it's amazing that we are not getting any real feedback on what the feeling at the count centre about the likely outcome is.Poor coverage by many media outlets.

Danzy

L1011 wrote: »

We've got sort-of the same issue in Kildare North; not quite as vicious though. Yet. One TD has most of the Cllrs behind him and the other has, well, one I believe. One was very anti-repeal and I suspect the other supported it because of that!

In FF 20 years ago, people would have been pushed In a direction, based on cohesion being in party interest, hq or the leader would have stepped in.

Now they'd be ignored or told where to go in strong terms.

A house divided.

Bass Reeves

Transfers are from the last surplus. In this case it would be Kelleher's surplus from Byrne. So in reality Byrne's votes anyway.

charlie14

Danzy wrote: »

In FF 20 years ago, people would have been pushed In a direction, based on cohesion being in party interest, hq or the leader would have stepped in.

Now they'd be ignored or told where to go in strong terms.

A house divided.

All parties headquarters are often quitely happy to see tension between running mates. Especially if there is the potential for them to pick up an extra seat in a constituency.

AndrewJRenko

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Alex White transferred 50% of his vote to Francis Fitzgerald in Dublin
The majority of Dominic Hannigan's votes were non transferable with McGuinnes already elected

Labour are not a party of the left in their behaviours or those of their voters.

In fairness, a lot of those votes may have transfered first to other left candidates that had already been eliminated and then to FG as part of a 'anyone but Gemma /Gilroy' strategy.

An Ciarraioch

Rebelbrowser wrote: »

Agree with that. Clune wont pass Ni Riada on this count. Her best bet is that Billy Kelleher does very well on FF transfers and has a decent surplus. A lot of that would be Cork middle class votes that will obviously favour Clune over Ni Riada. I'd say Ni Riada will win by 1,500 or something in the end though. Clune clearly got less than 50% of Doyle's surplus so Kelleher unlikely to do much better from Byrne

I'd be more surprised if Clune didn't overtake LNR, given there's only 2,000 in the difference, and 80,000 to play for - granted, most will go to Kelleher and Wallace, but ample votes left over.

Just Saying

Bass Reeves wrote: »

Rebelbrowser wrote: »

Agree with that. Clune wont pass Ni Riada on this count. Her best bet is that Billy Kelleher does very well on FF transfers and has a decent surplus. A lot of that would be Cork middle class votes that will obviously favour Clune over Ni Riada. I'd say Ni Riada will win by 1,500 or something in the end though. Clune clearly got less than 50% of Doyle's surplus so Kelleher unlikely to do much better from Byrne

Transfers are from the last surplus. In this case it would be Kelleher's surplus from Byrne. So in reality Byrne's votes anyway.

Good point.The rate of transfer from Byrne to O Sullivan,Ni Riadh and Clune will indicate the likely breakdown of any distribution from Kelleher's surplus.

AndrewJRenko

Laois_Man wrote: »

Addressing some problem on the current system is not the problem I was addressing in my original post. It was your incorrect assertion that "electronic bits and bytes can be changed without leaving evidence" - which cannot (currently) happen with a Blockchain solution

This is not a new invention/architecture. It was proposed in the now very famous Satoshi Nakamoto paper in 2009. It's not re-inventing the wheel to apply it to voting

And my post that you were correcting was in the context of eVoting. If you are proposing blockchain as an eVoting solution, please provide some basic details of your proposal and and details of the objectives - what benefits will arise.

Danzy

charlie14 wrote: »

All parties headquarters are often quitely happy to see tension between running mates. Especially if there is the potential for them to pick up an extra seat in a constituency.

Certainly but this isn't tension, this is now raw hatred.

I don't get why it is so bitter but it is being taken personal by people who'll never even visit Brussels.

Long-standing and prominent members refused to help Kelleher and cut the legs from under him to anyone who would listen.

Laois_Man

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

I'd be more surprised if Clune didn't overtake LNR, given there's only 2,000 in the difference, and 80,000 to play for - granted, most will go to Kelleher and Wallace, but ample votes left over.

IMO, and I would actually like to be proved wrong, FF transfers are probably more likely to go to SF than FG - especially when they're all effectively Cork candidates

Just Saying

Apparently nearly 40% of the Byrne vote is going to Kelleher which should give him somewhere between 3-5 k surplus.

AndrewJRenko

is_that_so wrote: »

About €20m per plebiscite. What is causing the (irrational IMO) ire here is the sheer quantity of candidates slowing it all down. In the GE/locals it's generally all over inside 2 days.

Do you have a source for this please? We very rarely do plebiscites so they're not really the issue.

cruizer101

Bass Reeves wrote: »

Transfers are from the last surplus. In this case it would be Kelleher's surplus from Byrne. So in reality Byrne's votes anyway.

Transfers aren't just based on the excess they are based on all that candidates votes

L1011

cruizer101 wrote: »

Transfers aren't just based on the excess they are based on all that candidates votes

Only on the first count. Last bundle otherwise.

mart 23

Im not sure if this has been asked . Will the holder of the so called storage seat get a salary from Europe while waiting for the UK to leave.

Laois_Man

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

And my post that you were correcting was in the context of eVoting. If you are proposing blockchain as an eVoting solution, please provide some basic details of your proposal and and details of the objectives - what benefits will arise.

Yes - eVoting is the context of what we're talking about

To be clear, I didn't say I was proposing it - I was correcting inaccuracies written in your replies to someone who was proposing it.

But since you asked, the benefits to be considered are that it would be a 100% trustworthy architecture (currently) - when we attempted this before, in the 00's, there was no such thing. The act of voting itself would still take place at a polling station in the presence of supervised administrators to ensure everything is above board - that the person voting is the person who is supposed to be voting and that (s)he is not acting under duress etc. But the results would be instantaneous once the polling stations are closed, and would be auditable (and cheaper after the first time)

Yes it would be a pity to lose the drama of the manual count - but drama is not its purpose. Soaps are for drama!

AndrewJRenko

Laois_Man wrote: »

Yes - eVoting is the context of what we're talking about

To be clear, I didn't say I was proposing it - I was correcting inaccuracies written in your replies to someone who was proposing it.

But since you asked, the benefits to be considered are that it would be a 100% trustworthy architecture (currently) - when we attempted this before, in the 00's, there was no such thing. The act of voting itself would still take place at a polling station in the presence of supervised administrators to ensure everything is above board - that the person voting is the person who is supposed to be voting and that (s)he is not acting under duress etc. But the results would be instantaneous once the polling stations are closed, and would be auditable (and cheaper after the first time)

Yes it would be a pity to lose the drama of the manual count - but drama is not its purpose. Soaps are for drama!

So the only benefit over the current paper system is the instantaneous result, right?

And how does the individual voter get to verify that the vote they submitted is the vote stored and counted - no interference before it goes into the blockchain?

Brussels Sprout

L1011 wrote: »

Only on the first count. Last bundle otherwise.

That's only for people exceeding the surplus. If the candidate is eliminated then all of their votes plus transfers transfer on further.

L1011

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

That's only for people exceeding the surplus. If the candidate is eliminated then all of their votes plus transfers transfer on further.

Well yes, but it was in the context of any transfers from Kelleher having previously been in Byrnes stack.

golfball37

mart 23 wrote: »

Im not sure if this has been asked . Will the holder of the so called storage seat get a salary from Europe while waiting for the UK to leave.

Yes.

Laois_Man

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

So the only benefit over the current paper system is the instantaneous result, right?

And how does the individual voter get to verify that the vote they submitted is the vote stored and counted - no interference before it goes into the blockchain?

And the security, and the cost - I wouldn't mind seeing the figure of the overall nationwide cost of all these counters, supervisors etc since last Saturday morning.

And your second question would actually be a further improvement I hadn't thought of - Because I have no way of verifying that the 3 ballot papers I put into the box last Friday were the one's counted and counted correctly on Saturday - and the one still sitting in the counts today!

AndrewJRenko

Laois_Man wrote: »

And the security, and the cost - I wouldn't mind seeing the figure of the overall nationwide cost of all these counters, supervisors etc since last Saturday morning.

And your second question would actually be a further improvement I hadn't thought of - Because I have no way of verifying that the 3 ballot papers I put into the box last Friday were the one's counted and counted correctly on Saturday - and the one still sitting in the counts today!

What security issues arise with the current system that this would improve on?

And shouldn't you really have some idea of the cost of the current system before you can say that the new one would be better?

Most counters finished on Sunday or Monday BTW, with much smaller teams hanging round for the remaining tasks.

If the voter can verify their vote afterwards, then you are opening up vote selling and duress voting.

If they can't verify, you have an opaque system with no transparency.

is_that_so

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Do you have a source for this please? We very rarely do plebiscites so they're not really the issue.

Not one I can find. €17m used to be a standard and was one I heard regularly a good while ago. There is this, which sounds a bit wild to me, but it seems to be a DOF number.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/election-2016/another-general-election-would-cost-the-state-a-massive-40m-department-of-finance-34590774.html

is_that_so

Just Saying wrote: »

In fairness to Ming he called this from a long way out.Casey has no chance of overturning the deficit...it's clearcut McG,Ming ,Walsh and Carthy...Not sure who'll occupy third and who'll be fourth?

Think this was called once the first opinion poll emerged, a couple of weeks back! Exit poll threw a spanner in the works for about a day.

Just Saying

is_that_so wrote: »

Think this was called once the first opinion poll emerged, a couple of weeks back! Exit poll threw a spanner in the works for about a day.

What I mean is that once the boxes were open and his team could see the pattern of second preferences he nailed his colours to the mast rather than the pussyfooting around by others.

robman60

golfball37 wrote: »

Yes.

Where did you see that? I thought no way they would get a salary straight away - they don't even have a job unless the seat frees up.


On a side note, if this election had been done on voting machines, I would say Walsh must have hacked it. Not a single person here it seems, or anyone I know even gave her a number, yet her she is on the cusp of election.

What is she even qualified in professionally? Whatever about the eejits that run normally, at least there is some political, business, or even real life experience of working in the community in some capacity.

I think she is probably a low, especially when it seems to be a role which isn't necessarily about working closely with constituents as the local council and even the Dáil is. Far more technocratic is my impression.

is_that_so

Just Saying wrote: »

What I mean is that once the boxes were open and his team could see the pattern of second preferences he nailed his colours to the mast rather than the pussyfooting around by others.

I didn't think he was ever in danger. Walsh's support level surprised me as I had originally expected her to come in that 6-8% bracket and I saw this more as a profile raising exercise for the GE. At 10% she was always going to be in it.