European Parliament Elections 2024 - Friday, June 7th

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122270690#Comment_122270690

You've really no clue, have you?

For a start, every voter doesn't have a PPS number, so now you're blocking Mags for exercising her democratic right. And all her mates who forgot to bring their PPS number with them, or misremembered it.

But even if we ignore that fundamental issue, your genius idea now requires that every voting machine sitting in every school hall has access to the personal details of all voters in the area, including PPS numbers.

So that means that either :

• every voting machine has to be preloaded with the details for the area (and not the area next door), or
• every voting machine now needs some kind of wireless network connection to a central database.

The Russians and Chinese are having wet dreams at either prospect, which have huge security risks, huge cost implications, huge logistics implications.

What happens when Mags doesn't finish the task btw?

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122271681#Comment_122271681

No one has pointed out the ways and makes for scanning hundreds of thousands of large ballot papers in any reasonable time period.

More importantly, no one has pointed out any business case for going down this road.

wazzzledazzle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122271748#Comment_122271748

I haven’t a clue? 😂

FFS, take a look in the mirror.

What I was suggesting was back of a fag pack idea

Do you think I spent some time doing a detailed analysis 😂

You remind me of a disgruntled longtime grade 3 public servant

Away with you

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122271770#Comment_122271770

Maybe back of fag packet ideas aren't great ideas?

Shocker!

Sam Russell

The use of ballot papers 60 cm long is a major problem that needs solving.

I was most dissatisfied with the voting arrangements afforded at my polling centre. I have been voting there for many years and never had any problem until the last vote.

There were extra booths placed in the middles of the room which were not private - people standing to collect their ballots were too close.

There were a dozen people standing around the room with no business there - I think they were tourists or foreign students.

The booth did not allow a proper scrutiny of the ballot because the table or shelf was tiny for a normal ballot but way too small for the actual ballot paper.

For some reason the place was packed. Normally when I vote, the staff outnumber the voters present - but not this time. I do not know why.

Now, whatever about counting these long ballots, there needs to be a rethink about how to get them manageable for voters to cast their vote.

Having an electorate casting 700,700 votes in one constituency with 27 candidates for five seats is not compatible with the STV system we use.

Something needs to change.

eCounting is one option.

Cutting the number of candidates by some method that is not anti-democratic is another. Eliminating the no-hopers by stipulating a minimum fraction of a quota of 1st preference votes (after initial surpluses are redistributed) causes candidates elimination. That might reduce the number of no-hopers.

The design of an ecounting system will not be done here. Nor will it be done in the next five years.

Brussels Sprout

Cutting the number of candidates by some method that is not anti-democratic is another. Eliminating the no-hopers by stipulating a minimum fraction of a quota of 1st preference votes (after initial surpluses are redistributed) causes candidates elimination. That might reduce the number of no-hopers.

Struggling to understand your suggestion here.

Is this meant to reduce the number of people on the ballot in the first place? Or are you instead trying to suggest something that would speed up the counting?

Sam Russell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122272257#Comment_122272257

Both.

If it is unattractive for no-hopers to be on the ballot because they will be eliminated at count one because they poll below a threshold, then they will not stand. That will also speed the count because it will cut the number of counts.

In the final few counts of all three constituencies, the last candidates were in the same, or nearly the same position, as at the start. The first six candidate at count one were still the first six candidates at the last count in the two five seaters, and the first five in Dublin at count one were still in the last count.

So eliminating the candidates who got less that 5% of a quota in each constituency would have saved about 10 counts in each constituency. 10% of a quota in Dublin is 0.1% of the vote.

That is about a day and a half. In fact, in Dublin, cutting it to 10%, (or 2% of the vote) would reduce counts to six counts with no change to the result.

It would not have changed the result to do that in any constituency but would have meant the counts would have finished on day two.

rock22

We have just had an election where all the counting was in full few of candidates, observers and media so couldn't be any more open and fair. We have all our MEPS identified four weeks before they actually meet in the European Parliament.

Any interference with the open transparent process that we have will only serve to undermone the trust in the ballot process and in our democracy. And all so we can have our MEPs identified four and a half weeks in advance.

For what it is worth, I voted in the MNW consituency with the longest ballot paper. While more awkward than the usual GE ballot paper it was, nevertheless, perfectly manageable.

Leave a perfectly good system alone.

Peregrinus

Couple of issues with this:

The first is that I see no reason to expect a no-hoper who is undeterred by the likelihood of being eliminated at an early stage will be deterred by the knowledge that that early stage will be "after the completion of the first count". He's likely to be in this for the campaign, not the count.

The second is an objection in principle; equal weight should be attached to all votes. This is not just a fundamental principle of the PR-STV system but it's also a constitutional requirement. Elimninating a candidate at a time when it is still possible for him to garner sufficient votes to be elected offends against that principle. He is being arbitrarily excluded and this devalues the votes of those who have given him their first preference, relative to the votes of those who gave their first preference to candidates not excluded by this arbitrary rule. It also means that people who have given second, etc, preference to the arbitrarily eliminated candidates have those arbitrarily arbitrarily disregarded. If we're doing this just to make the count shorter, we're essentially saying that we haven't got time to give effect to voters' preferences. That's not a good thing for any supposed-to-be-democratic electoral system to say.

But the third issue is that it doesn't seem to be necessary. Whether the candidates are eliminated one at a time or all together, all of the ballot papers of eliminated candidates have to be reexamined. There's nothing to stop electoral officials pre-examining the ballots of candidates who are likely to be eliminated in the next couple of counts and pre-sorting them according to the next effective preference. There's nothing to stop this from being done at the moment; it's just not the practice to do it. It would greatle speed up the completion of the succeeding counts, and it doesn't require arbitarily eliminating candidates who could still be elected, or arbitrarily disregarding prefernces for those candidates.

And, on a nitpick — actually, it's more than a nitpick — 10% of the quota in Dublin is not 0.1% of the vote. Dublin is a four-seat constituency. The quota is just over one-fifh of the vote, or 20%. 10% of a quota is just over 2% of the vote, twenty times bigger than you suggest.

breezy1985

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122271748#Comment_122271748

Are there voters with no PPS ?

Hasn't that been automatically assigned for years now and anyone either working, dole or pension would need one ?

Sam Russell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122272588#Comment_122272588

In some jurisdictions, such of Germany, a political party must achieve a minimum of votes to get into the parliament. It is 5% for a party, with regional exceptions for smaller localised parties.

The nitpick is an edit error - the following line has the correct figure.

What I am suggesting would have no impact on the result. A 5% would be greater than my threshold.

rock22

You are surely not suggesting we would take a lead from the German system.

Last week in Germany, one party, post election, changed it's list so people who thought they voted for one person ended up electing someone else.

There is more to our system than just proportionality. There is also the important characteristic than the electorate decide on the actual representative in distinction to List systems where the electorate generally have no say in who represents them.

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122272650#Comment_122272650

Germany doesn't have the single transferrable vote or the one vote, one value principle, so the same objections don't arise.

More to the point, the Germans adopted their threshold rule to solve an entirely different problem, which was a multiplicity of small parties actually getting elected.

The no-hopers here aren't getting elected; they're getting eliminated. So we don't have the problem that Germany had. And there's no reason why a measure deveopedby Germany to solve a problem that we don't have would recommend itself to us in our circumstances.

If takiing five days to complete the counts is a problem — and, myself, I don't see that it is — the parsimonious solution to that problem is obvious; complete the count more quickly. That doesn't require a change to the electoral system or the electoral rules, and certainly not changes that involve arbitrarily disregarding what voters have marked on their ballot papers.

markodaly

PR-STV doesn't scale when you have an electorate of over 1 million and you have 20+ candidates.

It took a week to get a result, and while the backroom wheeling and dealing was going in Brussels, we were still shifting through mountains of paper to see who actually won.

E-Voting seems to get peoples backs up, but there must be a way to speed up the count using machines, scanners, codes, or something.

bren2001

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122272779#Comment_122272779

It seems to scale fine. 5 days for a result isn’t an issue to me

markodaly

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122272824#Comment_122272824

Firstly it was 6 days of counting, and no, it doesn't scale at all.

How long would it take if we had 40 candidates? That is what scaling means.

The length of the count puts Ireland at a distinct disadvantage when it comes to the backroom deals being played out in the various EU groups. Numerous people, more qualified than you or I have mentioned this. But Ireland is a pen-and-paper society at heart. We hate change.

28064212

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122272650#Comment_122272650

What I am suggesting would have no impact on the result

No, what you are suggesting would have had no impact on the specific election that was just held. The only way you know that is because all the votes were checked. Until those votes were counted, it was possible for any of the candidates to be elected.

And once again, what problem is this supposed to solve? Length of count? Length of count is not a problem in itself. Is there something that was impacted because the count took as long as it did? Expense? Changing the system is vastly more expensive than keeping the system as is. So again, what problem is your proposal supposed to solve?

Podge_irl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122272779#Comment_122272779

What wheeling and dealing do you really think MEPs (who have yet to take office) would have been doing?

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122272779#Comment_122272779

Look, I'd need a bit more detail on the "backroom wheeling and dealing" supposedly going in in Brussels while our counts continue before I'd find the claim entirely persuasive.

Lots of member states uses list systems to elect MEPs, which means that there's a large proportion of candidates who know (because they are in the upper part of the list of a significant party) that they are going to be in the next Parliament even before the election is held. They could be "wheeling and dealing" before the election happens at all. There's nothing we can co about that unless we abandon the principle of letting the voters choose their own MEPS and, you know — tail, dog.

Given that, I struggle to see that the five days following the election is a crucial period and that Ireland is materially disadvantaged by the fact that its counts are still continuing. But for those who say that it is — point, please, to evidence oif disadvantage that we suffer. I'm very open to being persuaded that this is a problem, but I'm not interested in handwaving or hyperventilating.

On the issue of whether the count could be "speeded up using machines, scanners, codes or something" — it could be speeded up without such things, and maybe we should start there?

I'm not averse to the use of technology in the counting process, but I do have a concern that it's not enough that the technology should be accurate and unbiassed — voters must be confident that it is inaccurate and unbiassed. We live in an age of conspiracy theories, and in a time of antidemocratic political movements who have a strong commitment to undermining public trust in the democratic process. And we also live in a time when all voters have often suffered themselves from the faults and failures of technology, so it doesn't require an irrational degree of paranoia to fear that an automated electoral system might be less than 100% reliable in all circumstances. Put those factors together and I thinkyou have a real challenge in ensuring public confidence in any automated counting system.

I'm not saying its a challenge that can't be met. But it's a compelling reason not to rush into automation to solve a problem when it's not clear that we have a problem to be solved in the first place and when, if we do, we have other solutions to that problem which are not attended with the same challenge.

Sam Russell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122272843#Comment_122272843

It is not just the length of the count, it is the length of the ballot paper.

How can a voter select the order of candidates to vote a preference with a list of 27? It is like trying to have an intimate celebration with 50 of my closest friends.

I would imagine if most voters could actually list even five of the candidates or identify what they stood for in terms of policies. Some were quite unknown, and did nor canvas or put up posters. Why did they stand at all?

Personally, I did not view the ballot paper in total because there was no space in the booth to do so. I just picked out the three candidates I gave a preference to - all of which ended up in the top six. I did not see the point in selecting one candidate I had never heard of from another I had never heard of - and knew nothing about either.

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122272624#Comment_122272624

You don't need a PPS number to register to vote.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122272843#Comment_122272843

It's not that we hate change. We hate pi$$ing away large amounts of money and putting the security of our democracy at risk because some people don't have the patience to let a process play out for five or six days.

bren2001

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122272843#Comment_122272843

Splitting hairs if its 5 days or 6 days.

How long would it take if we had 40 candidates? That is what scaling means.

There's no indication we will have 40 candidates at the next election. If we do, its a conversation for then.

To answer the question 6/7 days? Also seems like a reasonable timeframe. I see no issue with that.

breezy1985

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122272934#Comment_122272934

I'm not arguing that you do or that you should have to.

I asked does anyone exist in this country who can vote and doesn't have a PPS number. I thought it is practically impossible not to have one now.

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122273107#Comment_122273107

I don't have access to the database, but I do know that when you're dealing with a full population, you come across all kinds of exceptions and unusual situations on a fairly regular basis - new arrivals, older people, disconnected from public services.

Bringing the PPS number into the actual voting process raises a whole raft of questions, with this being one of the smaller issues.

StormForce13

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122269439#Comment_122269439

From The Journal, relating to the 2020 General Election.

"Counters at count centres are paid €272 for the first 12 hours each day and €26 per hour after that." 

I'm not sure how much the humanoid feeders of ballot papers into these fantastic high tech scanning machines will earn per hour, but they'll still be needed to unfold the ballot papers, make sure that they're not upside down, feed them into the hoppers, clear any blockages and then move them after they've been scanned. It's highly technical, physically demanding work, probably on a par with an Aer Lingus pilot flying an Airbus across the Irish Sea on a windy afternoon in October, so I'd expect that the 'feeders' would be paid much the same daily rate as a Medical Consultant in the Blackrock Clinic, or maybe more.

Incidentally, recalling the small fortunes accumulated by the people who stored the voting machines back in the 1990's where do you anticipate these large scanning machines will be stored between elections, bearing in mind their size, quantity and the requirement for them to be stored in a warm, dry, dust-free environment (and probably maintained annually to ensure that they're in good nick)?

Maybe the Healy Rae brothers could find a few empty warehouses in Kilgarvan!

rock22

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122273107#Comment_122273107

Are fellow EU citizens living here entitled to vote in European elections ( and local elections for that matter)?

Would they all have PPS numbers?

Sam Russell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122273218#Comment_122273218

Yes and probably. They need to be residents here, which would imply working here, but they could be retired here and not claiming any SW benefits.

breezy1985

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122273218#Comment_122273218

I would be shocked if they don't. Unless they are not working or living without any sort of access to state services.

Sam Russell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122273213#Comment_122273213

The scanners required would be glorified photocopiers. Proper handling of ballots at the polling stations such they were placed face down in the ballot boxes, and top placed correctly, then that would basically make the scanning process simple.

I've never flown an Are Lingus Airbus across the Irish sea but I have operated a photocopier, and could handle a scanner for ballot papers - even ones 60 cm long.

The pay of counters will probably be the same as now.

As for storing the scanners - well, that can be considered when they are needed to be stored. Imagine the size of electronic devices from 20 years ago, and the size of the same functionality electronic equipment now. If the scanner could scan at twice the current speed, only half as many would be needed.

I would assume you are over thinking this whole issue.

StormForce13

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122273337#Comment_122273337

I don't care whether they'd be glorified vacuum cleaners or microwave ovens! They still have to be stored long-term in a proper environment and maintained regularly, and, given the infrequency of Irish elections, they're quite likely to be obsolete by the time the next election comes around. It's an expensive, pie in the sky solution for a non-problem.

And you've some neck accusing me of over-thinking things when your high-tech solution to the question of storage is "Ah Jaysus! we can think about that after we have bought them"!

"The bill for storing the 7,500 electronic voting machines around the country is now running at just under €700,000 per year, the Dáil Public Accounts Committee heard yesterday. The secretary general of the Department of the Environment, Niall Callan, said the storage bill for this year would be €696,000. This represents an increase of around €38,000 over last year's figure. He said the Department of the Environment was in discussions with the Department of Defence about having the machines stored centrally in Army premises. However he said that there were issues of security, scale and logistics to be decided."

That was 18 years ago - what would it cost today?