Should Voting be mandatory?

ghostdancer

have you ever listened to a radio/TV vox pop on the street?
people are f-kcin idiots.

I'd rather make it more difficult for people to vote to be honest. have an independent commission do up a small test with basic questions about government/institutions/politics in Ireland, that you have to pass to get a voting licence.

I'd prefer 100 people who are informed and have taken the trouble to educate themselves and do some basic research, over 100,000 that only voted because they were forced to.

Dash_Of_Red

ghostdancer wrote: »

have you ever listened to a radio/TV vox pop on the street?
people are f-kcin idiots.

I'd rather make it more difficult for people to vote to be honest. have an independent commission do up a small test with basic questions about government/institutions/politics in Ireland, that you have to pass to get a voting licence.

I'd prefer 100 people who are informed and have taken the trouble to educate themselves and do some basic research, over 100,000 that only voted because they were forced to.

So "No" then.

Leroy42

Eircom_Sucks wrote: »

Im 38 and voted once in my life

Won’t vote anymore , i’ve no interest in what party this or that etc

No matter who comes in , joe public gets shaffted as per usual , none have ever backed up their policies

So no i won’t bother

So you simply lie down and give up?

By not bothering to vote you are telling politicians that it makes no difference what they do, you don't care.

But the likes of the Water Charges protests prove that things can change.

Instead of doing nothing, all those fed up with politicians and politics should band together to get there people to top the polls. There is close to 40% free votes just waiting to be utilised to make change.

With social media getting these things going isn't that difficult. At the end, all the reasons for not voting tend to fall away to simply; too much hassle and I don't care.

AndrewJRenko

Donald Trump wrote: »

I'll disagree with you on this. I'm not sure why people who would otherwise be apathetic enough not to bother vote would be pulled to an extreme. I can anticipate some kind of argument where one might think that the people who do not vote are disengaged and maybe poorer/less educated and that those might be pulled towards extremes. I don't really buy that all those people are gullible and automatically attracted to populism and demagoguery. And the onus is on the other politicians to earn their votes. There might be a greater danger initially, but once people start to take responsibility for their choices then they will become more engaged.

I hope you're right, but experiences in other countries raise the question of pushing out to extreme views. The extremists pretty much crashed out in these elections though, with the facists from Irexit and crazy Gemma crashing and burning badly, and Casey being a long way from any kind of credibility.

Eircom_Sucks wrote: »

Im 38 and voted once in my life

Won’t vote anymore , i’ve no interest in what party this or that etc

No matter who comes in , joe public gets shaffted as per usual , none have ever backed up their policies

So no i won’t bother

Good of you to let your neighbours put in the candidates that suit them best - very generous.

ghostdancer wrote: »

have you ever listened to a radio/TV vox pop on the street?
people are f-kcin idiots.

At times like this, I'm reminded of Sid Viscous comment on the 'man in the street'.

AndrewJRenko

Eircom_Sucks wrote: »

all back handers and brown evelopes

Please do share your evidence of this, given that only a handful of politicians have been caught on this stuff in the past decade.

Or is it just a cop out to avoid making a decision?

tayto lover

I always vote but for years now it’s not a choice of who’s the best for the job but of who’s the least corrupt or annoying.

Eircom_Sucks

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Please do share your evidence of this, given that only a handful of politicians have been caught on this stuff in the past decade.

Or is it just a cop out to avoid making a decision?

A handful that have been caught

Will i walk you through it and hold your hand while explaining ?

AndrewJRenko

Eircom_Sucks wrote: »

A handful that have been caught

Will i walk you through it and hold your hand while explaining ?

Yes, please do explain.

Aska

I'd say yes, my father hasn't bothered his hole voting for decades now.


If not mandatory maybe they should be removed if they don't vote for a specific amount of elections in a row, as in if you miss 3 in a row etc.

Donald Trump

Aska wrote: »

I'd say yes, my father hasn't bothered his hole voting for decades now.


If not mandatory maybe they should be removed if they don't vote for a specific amount of elections in a row, as in if you miss 3 in a row etc.

No. While I would be somewhat in favour of some form of mandatory voting, I would 100% be against forcefully removing the vote from anyone as a punishment. It opens up a complete new can of worms with potential abuse and manipulation, or at a minimum, accusations of abuse and manipulation.


I mean forcefully in the sense of taking it against their wishes.

OldMrBrennan83

I'd happily take the fine if they ever brought it in. It would be absolute horse **** though, people shouldn't want someone like me to vote.

Tell me how

OldMrBrennan83 wrote: »

I'd happily take the fine if they ever brought it in. It would be absolute horse **** though, people shouldn't want someone like me to vote.

That makes no sense.
You'd sooner pay money than go to a polling station to vote or spoil your ballot?

What do you think you'd achieve by doing this?

OldMrBrennan83

Tell me how wrote: »

That makes no sense.
You'd sooner pay money than go to a polling station to vote or spoil your ballot?

What do you think you'd achieve by doing this?

I don't believe any politician is any more than a chancer that tells you lies and won't be heard tell of once they've duped a vote from someone. I don't give a toss about referendums. I don't want to be on the electoral register. I don't want to waste my time going to a polling station. I'd pay the fine.

One vote matters little anyway, well get exactly the same if I don't vote as we'll get if I do.

Donald Trump

OldMrBrennan83 wrote: »

I don't believe any politician is any more than a chancer that tells you lies and won't be heard tell of once they've duped a vote from someone. I don't give a toss about referendums. I don't want to be on the electoral register. I don't want to waste my time going to a polling station. I'd pay the fine.

You can take yourself off the electoral register (I assume).

Your neighbours can make your choices for you if you are happy with that. You'll be happy and they'll be happy and the politicians will be happy because it's one less vote(r) to worry about or answer to

OldMrBrennan83

Donald Trump wrote: »

You can take yourself off the electoral register (I assume).

Your neighbours can make your choices for you if you are happy with that. You'll be happy and they'll be happy and the politicians will be happy because it's one less vote(r) to worry about or answer to

You can indeed I think. I'm not on it any more anyway though.

And like I said, they'll make the choices anyway. Has any election or referendum ever been decided by one vote?

Donald Trump

OldMrBrennan83 wrote: »

You can indeed I think. I'm not on it any more anyway though.

I'm perfectly fine with that as long as people who remove themselves from the system realize that they have no right to criticize it any more. They waived their influence to make any changes so cannot moan about other people's decisions.

OldMrBrennan83 wrote: »

And like I said, they'll make the choices anyway. Has any election or referendum ever been decided by one vote?

Actually yes. I learned today from a link on another thread where an election was decided by 1/50th of a vote! This was the link the poster gave http://www.mayonews.ie/news/33709-when-1-50th-of-a-vote-decided-an-election

(In reality, one vote would have changed it. The 1/50 comes from the proportional transfer)

OldMrBrennan83

Donald Trump wrote: »

I'm perfectly fine with that as long as people who remove themselves from the system realize that they have no right to criticize it any more. They waived their influence to make any changes so cannot moan about other people's decisions.

Of course I can. Someone not voting doesn't automatically turn a crook into an honest person. Even if I did vote, the people that were going to win would still win and the people that were going to lose would still lose anyway.

Donald Trump

OldMrBrennan83 wrote: »

Of course I can. Someone not voting doesn't automatically turn a crook into an honest person. Even if I did vote, the people that were going to win would still win and the people that were going to lose would still lose anyway.

How do you have any entitlement to criticize it when you abdicated from any contribution you could have made to change it. Why are you so special that everyone else should change it on your behalf?



10 people get together to build a playground for their neighbourhood. One says "I can't be arsed" so the other 9 go off and fundraise and design and get it built. Number 10 comes back at the end moaning that it's not perfect and they they should have raised more money or done X or Y.

OldMrBrennan83

Donald Trump wrote: »

How do you have any entitlement to criticize it when you abdicated from any contribution you could have made to change it. Why are you so special that everyone else should change it on your behalf?



10 people get together to build a playground for their neighbourhood. One says "I can't be arsed" so the other 9 go off and fundraise and design and get it built. Number 10 comes back at the end moaning that it's not perfect and they they should have raised more money or done X or Y.

It's not 10 though. My vote wouldn't be 10% of the electorate.

mvl

BrokenArrows wrote: »

It should be mandatory, but it should also be easier.

There is no reason that we cant have a secure voting system. If everyone in the countries money is safe behind a simple username and password with online banking them surely they can make a voting system.

And in the case where some security breach is found then they just reset the election and tell everyone to vote again.

It just be as easy as installing an app, signing in and voting.

I'd be inclined to agree on the accessibility.

and I would be pushing it further: come up with a third layer in lawmaking, besides Dail/Seanad, allowing all citizens to vote continuously with smart voting machines using biometrics/face recognition/IOT...

Donald Trump

OldMrBrennan83 wrote: »

It's not 10 though. My vote wouldn't be 10% of the electorate.

That's beside the point. Change it to 10000 people get together. One walks away and 9999 try to make changes or get something done. At the end of it the one person comes back giving out about what was or wasn't done.



There are apparently loads of people out there that claim they want certain things to change. Unfortunately a lot of them do the exact opposite of what might effect any change.

OldMrBrennan83

Donald Trump wrote: »

That's beside the point. Change it to 1000 people get together. One walks away and 9999 try to make changes or get something done. At the end of it the one person comes back giving out about what was or wasn't done.



There are apparently loads of people out there that claim they want certain things to change. Unfortunately a lot of them do the exact opposite of what might effect any change.

I'm talking about my vote, or lack of, though and other people not voting are of no concern to me. My one single vote won't affect a result in any way at all, and it wouldn't matter even if it did as we're back to the fact that politicians are all worthless individuals interested in the personal gains the position can bring.

AndrewJRenko

OldMrBrennan83 wrote: »

I don't believe any politician is any more than a chancer that tells you lies and won't be heard tell of once they've duped a vote from someone.

Have any of them heard of you? Have you ever tried contacting one?

amcalester

OldMrBrennan83 wrote: »

I'm talking about my vote, or lack of, though and other people not voting are of no concern to me. My one single vote won't affect a result in any way at all, and it wouldn't matter even if it did as we're back to the fact that politicians are all worthless individuals interested in the personal gains the position can bring.

Your post got me wondering about what was the lowest winning margin in an election.

For Dail seats, 5 votes seems to be the smallest amount between winning and losing. 3 seats have been decided by 5 votes since 1982.

I don’t think voting should be mandatory though.

Nikki Sixx

As somebody who didn’t vote yesterday, I’ll give you my reasons for abstaining:
I’m tired of paying extortionate rent and no politician doing anything about the housing crisis.
I’m sick of phony election promises.
I feel candidates just want to get into power and fill their own pockets.
I’m blue in the face from hearing about the numerous pensions, allowances and golden handshakes politicians are getting.
Euro M.P.’s like Brian Crowley (now retired) are on a complete gravy train.

Nikki Sixx

Eircom_Sucks wrote: »

Only good politician is a dead politician

All useless

They are motivated by money and power. Not one of them cares about the ordinary man on the street. They’ll promise anything to get in and will tear up their election manifesto soon after getting elected. The major parties spend hundreds of thousands on p.r. advisors and spin doctors in general.

Donald Trump

Nobelium wrote: »

If you think being a good box ticking chimp is going to achieve anything you're deluded.



Says it all really, force people to vote for an arsehole . . .



Again if you think any box ticking chimp or my neighbors decide how the country is run . . you're deluding yourself.

Hey look, that's fine. Go onto the internet and bitch about "de man" and "de gubbermint" rather than manning up and doing your bit. Viva la revolución and all that.



I'm sure that you think your views are more relevant than these 'box ticking chimps". If you don't vote, they are the equivalent of the ramblings of the 'drunk on the bus telling people how to get rich' (to borrow a line).


For a fella that doesn't care about politics you are strangely posting a lot on a politically related topic.


If you didn't use your vote, that's your own choice. Mandatory voting would be to help to make sure that people like yourself have a say. That's all.

Donald Trump

Nikki Sixx wrote: »

As somebody who didn’t vote yesterday, I’ll give you my reasons for abstaining:
I’m tired of paying extortionate rent and no politician doing anything about the housing crisis.
I’m sick of phony election promises.
I feel candidates just want to get into power and fill their own pockets.
I’m blue in the face from hearing about the numerous pensions, allowances and golden handshakes politicians are getting.
Euro M.P.’s like Brian Crowley (now retired) are on a complete gravy train.

So what is it then, just begrudgery? Jealousy that they get a few quid for a role that anyone can run for, including you or me should we be so inclined.

You had your opportunity yesterday to do something constructive so if you decided not to, then no point complaining about it. Basically you would be coming on here, complaining about the way other people used their votes when you didn't even exercise your own.



The local councillors get a decent little chunk of pocket money, but I wouldn't be giving up a 9-to-5 to do it for the money! Would you?

Beta Ray Bill

Donald Trump wrote: »

While they are interesting, I find your views a little inconsistent. You wouldn't run for office because of the salary in case you did not get re-elected. There is no reason why, if you could get elected one time, that you could not get re-elected and make a career out of it. You'd pay a 50 Euro fine rather than perform your civic duty to vote, yet if you were randomly selected, with effectively almost zero chance of being randomly selected again in 5 years, you'd drop your career and go into politics out of a sense of duty.

Things that have happened very recently in my life have made me risk averse.
I don't take chances with my life security. And while yes I could get elected a 2nd time round, what if I didn't? what do I do then? I'd have to go back in IT having not done an IT role in 5 years. To risky.

And yes, the sense of duty is important to me. You do the right thing for your country when asked to. Voting for some local politician is not the same as that.

Donald Trump wrote: »

You must know that there might be people out that you would consider competent and deserving of your vote, but there is little point in them running because people won't bother their arses to get out to use their vote. Which gives more power to the parties and their political machines. So in effect, the problem is just as much with those who refuse to use their vote. And perhaps more so.

Perhaps there should be a "None of the above" tick box.
In my jurisdiction there was no one that I could take seriously, and vote for.
There are politicians I like but they're not running in my area.

Donald Trump wrote: »

You recognize that it is difficult to have independents achieve anything without the structure of a party and a whip. yet you advocate dumping (say 150) randomers in together and expect them to cooperate or at least nor function any worse than what we currently have. Even when we can see the current shambles across the water of what happens when there are so many opinions and no coherency.

I believe 150 people that are not be affiliated to a party in any way would be capable of cooperating better then the government we have. Yes Brexit is an unusual one, however once May's deal was voted down, they should have just left without the deal. The question put to the parliament should have been: "Do you want to leave with this deal OR leave with no deal?", Not "do you accept this deal?" Each question put to any panel needs a decision made on the outcome. In the British parliament, the decision has been to do nothing.

Donald Trump wrote: »

You dismiss people who aspire to get into politics, regardless of their reasons, and imply that randomly selected people would do a better job. I don't know man. I mean people who become solicitors often get into it because it gives them prestige and wealth rather than for the good of helping their fellow man, but I know that if I needed legal help, I'd rather have a qualified solicitor helping me than a randomer off the street. And if the solicitor is no good, I'll use a different one the next time until I find a decent one.

Which in this case is 5 years, which is a long time.

Mostly people seek a career that brings in a good bit of money.
Politicians seek this too, but also seek power. They want to be the person in charge.
In corporate organisations I see this all the time, there's the one person who's trying to position themselves as a linchpin, in a number of areas, IE "The go to Guy/Girl". It's particularly evident in financial institutions.
These are the people I tend to avoid at all costs, they're more interested in being in charge than doing their job. If you work in finance you'll know exactly the kind of people I'm talking about.

trellheim

trellheim wrote: »

To all those who say they dont have the time... its like Jury Duty you turn up its not optional you can argue with the beak when you get into court.

Or you call the court registrar beforehand and get excused that way

grahambo

grahambo wrote: »

If the Fine was €50, I'd pay the fine rather than vote.

Problem isn't so much the system rather the candidates.
They're appalling!

Elections would be better done like Jury Duty.
A bunch of Candidates are picked from a pool/constituency at random, the candidates fill out the "About me" section and then the Electorate decide on those candidates and form a Government.

Tell me how wrote: »

This is a ludicrous suggestion.

Actually one of the oldest democratic methods

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition

McGiver

Cookie_Monster wrote:

NZ has the balance right I think. It's a legal requirement to be registered to vote, but there is no actual compulsion to vote.

Where I'm from, every citizen of legal age is automatically registered and gets ballot papers by post. This is because all citizens must have their ordinary residence registered. Quite common in most of Europe bar UK and Ireland.

Donald Trump

grahambo wrote: »

Things that have happened very recently in my life have made me risk averse.
I don't take chances with my life security. And while yes I could get elected a 2nd time round, what if I didn't? what do I do then? I'd have to go back in IT having not done an IT role in 5 years. To risky.

And yes, the sense of duty is important to me. You do the right thing for your country when asked to. Voting for some local politician is not the same as that.

You hvaen't really answered the point. There are two scenarios:

Scenario A is current situation where you could decide to run, and have a chance at re-election and making a career out of politics.

Scenario B is where you *have* to serve if being randomly selected but there is almost zero chance or randomly being picked a subsequent time.

You seem to be against the first because it would be financially detrimental, yet you would be fine if you were selected for the second.


Would you be fine with me being randomly selected for the second? I mean, I might keep my 9-to-5 on the side or do a bit of consulting work and then spend the other days at home watching TV or going to the gym. I'd still be getting paid and I wouldn't really have to face any electorate would I? I'm not going for re-election and I didn't even have to produce any lies on manifestos on things that I claimed I would do.

grahambo wrote: »

Mostly people seek a career that brings in a good bit of money.
Politicians seek this too, but also seek power. They want to be the person in charge.
In corporate organisations I see this all the time, there's the one person who's trying to position themselves as a linchpin, in a number of areas, IE "The go to Guy/Girl". It's particularly evident in financial institutions.
These are the people I tend to avoid at all costs, they're more interested in being in charge than doing their job. If you work in finance you'll know exactly the kind of people I'm talking about.

So is your solution to raise the pay of politicians so that it attracts in more people who aren't just looking for "power"? If a councillor got paid 200k a year, that maybe it would be worth your while to do it then? In order to attract in good candidates such as yourself, or the people that you would like to have in.

MartyMcFly84

No it shouldn't be mandatory. It is an infringement on freedom.

They should however look into technology just as app based voting. If people could register and vote on their phone or computer there would way way more people voting.

Leroy42

MartyMcFly84 wrote: »

No it shouldn't be mandatory. It is an infringement on freedom.

They should however look into technology just as app based voting. If people could register and vote on their phone or computer there would way way more people voting.

So your basis for people not voting, or at least a sizeable portion or them, is that it is too much hassle?

Infringement on Freedom? Hyperbole much? Is the creation of laws against Drink Driving and infringement on Freedom? What about stopping at red lights? Or paying taxes?

It is a few hours every few years to enable society to work based on the system that the nation has agreed is the best model to work with.

What is the alternative (apart from these magical technologies?). Not voting? So you would prefer that people are simply selected by some other method, maybe birthright? Or how much they earn? Or where they live? Would that suit you better?

AndrewJRenko

MartyMcFly84 wrote: »

No it shouldn't be mandatory. It is an infringement on freedom.

They should however look into technology just as app based voting. If people could register and vote on their phone or computer there would way way more people voting.

With an app, there would be way more people buying and selling votes, and being forced to vote in a particular direction by their overbearing partner or employer.

The private polling booth has a particular function in protecting the integrity of the ballot.

UK trials of remote voting show no improvement in turnout.

And we haven't even started on how you ensure that vote cast is the vote counted.

flazio

I think this call for mandatory voting is coming from people who have been whinging on Facebook for years to "turf the rot out" and the such but when the vote came along, the opposition wasn't strong enough and sense won out. So this is just a desperate attempt to find their voice again.

Make it mandatory to close all business on voting day and more people will vote.
If you're working a 12 hour shift and commuting 45 mins each way, you potentially have very little opportunity to vote.

Probably why the government pander so much to the unemployed and elders. They know they'll be out on voting day.

MartyMcFly84

MartyMcFly84 wrote: »

No it shouldn't be mandatory. It is an infringement on freedom.

They should however look into technology just as app based voting. If people could register and vote on their phone or computer there would way way more people voting.

And there would be no way for bad actors to interfere with that at all at all

MartyMcFly84

With an app, there would be way more people buying and selling votes, and being forced to vote in a particular direction by their overbearing partner or employer.

I don't know how you have come to that conclusion. People take their phones into the toilets for a read I am sure they can use their phone in private at some moment throughout the day to cast a vote.

What puts most people off is the registration and logistics. If you move you have to register or face a commute to vote. Its just extra admin that most could do without.

MartyMcFly84

MartyMcFly84 wrote: »

I don't know how you have come to that conclusion. People take their phones into the toilets for a read I am sure they can use their phone in private at some moment throughout the day to cast a vote.

What puts most people off is the registration and logistics. If you move you have to register or face a commute to vote. Its just extra admin that most could do without.

I can unlock my wife's phone and she can mine. I know my parents unlock codes, as they look to me to fix them.
I know my wife's parents' phone unlocks (for same reasons as above).

And that is before you go near phishing or app based attacks

I already have an issue with being able to vote, with just a polling card and no photo ID, never mind it being open to personal tech

AndrewJRenko

MartyMcFly84 wrote: »

I don't know how you have come to that conclusion. People take their phones into the toilets for a read I am sure they can use their phone in private at some moment throughout the day to cast a vote.

Not when there partner is threatening to beat the crap out of them if they don't vote in front of them.

Have you looked into the history of voting abuse at all?

Leroy42

And who controls you downloads the app? And doesn't it mean giving more details (phone number) etc to the voting register? Will it only be possible to use the app during normal voting times?

It seems like we are creating solutions to a problem that doesn't exist. People have been voting for years, polling stations are open 13 hours on the day and are based locally.

From the comments on this thread I think many don't vote because of lack of engagement, lack of belief that the vote will matter, lack of confidence in those to vote for or simply not being bothered.

I have yet to see how making changes to the voting system itself will help deal with any of these.

There is clearly a significant amount of potential voters that feel completely disengaged from the process, and we need to get to the bottom of why that is and how is can be reversed. Mandatory voting is at least placing some responsibility on the voter themselves to at least ask themselves if disengagement is worth it. (if there was a fine for example).

But as we have seen from the people's forum in recent years, I think getting a cross section of the population to discuss why so many people are not voting would be a good start. But there also needs to be a significant operation undertaken to correct the current voting register.

But some of the results of the recent elections show that voting does make a difference. Boylan topped the EU poll in 2014 and now looks like she won't even get a seat this time.

MartyMcFly84

I can unlock my wife's phone and she can mine. I know my parents unlock codes, as they look to me to fix them.
I know my wife's parents' phone unlocks (for same reasons as above).

And that is before you go near phishing or app based attacks

I already have an issue with being able to vote, with just a polling card and no photo ID, never mind it being open to personal tech

Just because you can unlock a phone doesn't mean you have access to every app on the phone. For example there is online banking apps that require multiple passwords. Finger print, retina and facial recognition are all technologies that currently exists and can be added to enhance app security.

We need to embrace technology as the solution and move away from manual processes.

MartyMcFly84

MartyMcFly84 wrote: »

Just because you can unlock a phone doesn't mean you have access to every app on the phone. For example there is online banking apps that require multiple passwords. Finger print, retina and facial recognition are all technologies that currently exists and can be added to enhance app security.

We need to embrace technology as the solution and move away from manual processes.

So now you want to give the voting registrar finger print, retina and facial recognition?

Even the banking apps will not allow certain tasks without further proof (AIBs frustrating card reader, for example)
Every app, like this, is vulnerable to phishing and social engineering, which I notice that you "conveniently" ignore. Every app is also, to varying degrees, vulnerable to external attack.

Now we come to securing the backend, are you really sure that the Irish government is capable of preventing Russia/China (A.N.Other) compromising our European elections? I know that I would not like the task of this (cough WhatsApp/Equifax/Sony cough). Are you going to be happy with the security of the hardware manufacturers? Ummm Spectre/Meltdown. Never mind Government Agencies putting pressure for backdoors into hardware.

And that is before we get into coercion of voting


So I take 10 minutes out of my day and take an analogue pencil and place a mark on physical paper; which can be counted, and recounted if required, by physical handling? Yeah that is the better way for the majority, currently.

Leroy42

MartyMcFly84 wrote: »

Just because you can unlock a phone doesn't mean you have access to every app on the phone. For example there is online banking apps that require multiple passwords. Finger print, retina and facial recognition are all technologies that currently exists and can be added to enhance app security.

We need to embrace technology as the solution and move away from manual processes.

And who is going to pay for all this? Why should I pay even more for a system simply because too many people are not bothered to go to their local polling station?

The current system works pretty well, has dealt with many issues and come through the other side. Any new technology will obviously have problems which could end up destroying any faith in the process.

It is not that new technologies shouldn't be looked at, but I don't see it as the 1st priority.

Before it was because it was the wrong day of the week, or the polls not open long enough. Then its because there is too much information, or not enough, or too many candidates, or only the same parties.

The point being that if it is important to you, then you would make the effort. It takes 10 minutes to vote, and hour if you are generous with travel times. 1 hour every two/three years? Yet people will travel to games, to the pub, to town, to shopping centres etc.

My area of concern is that all those that don't vote are simply ignored. There is never a question asked as to why and what they really think. So by not even turning up you are totally ignored. Even spoiling the vote has some impact. If enough people do it then questions will be asked.

I, we all, live in a democracy. A democracy that people gave up their very lives to get us. The single biggest responsibility we have, both to our fellow citizens but also to those that fought for our right to vote, is to make an effort.

AndrewJRenko

MartyMcFly84 wrote: »

We need to embrace technology as the solution and move away from manual processes.

Why? What benefit would arise from technology in this scenario, bearing in mind that UK trials with remote voting showed no increase in turnout.

This 'must have technology' thinking is what caused us to pi$$ away €60 million on eVoting machines in our not so distant past.

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Why? What benefit would arise from technology in this scenario, bearing in mind that UK trials with remote voting showed no increase in turnout.

This 'must have technology' thinking is what caused us to pi$$ away €60 million on eVoting machines in our not so distant past.

Ha, remember when €60 million was considered a scandalous overspend?

MartyMcFly84

So now you want to give the voting registrar finger print, retina and facial recognition?

Even the banking apps will not allow certain tasks without further proof (AIBs frustrating card reader, for example)
Every app, like this, is vulnerable to phishing and social engineering, which I notice that you "conveniently" ignore. Every app is also, to varying degrees, vulnerable to external attack.

And that is before we get into coercion of voting

And manual counting is not open to error or fraud?

I am giving examples here. there are apps that flow over multiple channels, generate temporary passwords, etc . There many many tech based solutions, which you seem to be shutting the door on before they can be looked into.

There is a huge problem with voter turn out in Ireland. The principle reason is the physically going to an assigned polling station. The work/life dynamic has changed in the country. People move frequently , especially people renting , commutes are longer and more often than not both parents are working. This leaves less and less time for extra admin and to have to physically have to commute to vote, or register every time you move.

I know people working in Dublin mid week who have to travel to Waterford to vote.

We cannot use the solutions of the past and expect them to work for the modern generation or future generations.

Even if tech route is too far down the road. Simply moving the voting day to a weekend would substantially increase voter turn out. However not as much if there is a tech solution rolled out would. If you want people to vote you have to make it easier for them.

AndrewJRenko

MartyMcFly84 wrote: »

And manual counting is not open to error or fraud?

I am giving examples here. there are apps that flow over multiple channels, generate temporary passwords, etc . There many many tech based solutions, which you seem to be shutting the door on before they can be looked into.

There is a huge problem with voter turn out in Ireland. The principle reason is the physically going to an assigned polling station. The work/life dynamic has changed in the country. People move frequently , especially people renting , commutes are longer and more often than not both parents are working. This leaves less and less time for extra admin and to have to physically have to commute to vote, or register every time you move.

I know people working in Dublin mid week who have to travel to Waterford to vote.

We cannot use the solutions of the past and expect them to work for the modern generation or future generations.

Even if tech route is too far down the road. Simply moving the voting day to a weekend would substantially increase voter turn out. However not as much if there is a tech solution rolled out would. If you want people to vote you have to make it easier for them.

How do you ensure that the vote cast is the vote counted, without compromising the secret ballot?

How do you prevent vote buying and selling, and duress voting?