Register to Comment
Page 18 of 30 FirstFirst ... 81617181920 28 ... LastLast
Results 171 to 180 of 292
Like Tree50Likes
  1. #171
    SPN SPN is offline

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    17,608

    Quote Originally Posted by Humbert View Post
    It's actually a bad day for the country - Ireland has been positioning itself as the IT capital of the world and it can't put in place the kind of system that works in loads of different countries but must rely on paper and pencil with an inbuilt-error and proneness to manipulation.

    So the first system didn't work? They should have fixed it or gotten another.

    Very sad - another blow to the 'Paddy can do it' spirit.
    eVoting systems are being withdrawn in Countries all over the World because they don't live up to their promise.

    In Ireland we have a voting system, PR-STV, and Constitutional requirements, that effectively make it impossible to replicate the system using an electronic format.

    The paper system works just fine. Let's stop trying to find a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  2. #172
    Humbert Humbert is offline
    Humbert's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    5,513

    Quote Originally Posted by SPN View Post
    eVoting systems are being withdrawn in Countries all over the World because they don't live up to their promise.

    In Ireland we have a voting system, PR-STV, and Constitutional requirements, that effectively make it impossible to replicate the system using an electronic format.

    The paper system works just fine. Let's stop trying to find a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.
    Examples of such countries?
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  3. #173
    Humbert Humbert is offline
    Humbert's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    5,513

    Quote Originally Posted by EvotingMachine0197 View Post
    So, spend another 50 million on another evoting system (which we don't need) instead of on say, a decent broadband infrastructure (which we do need), just to show the world that we can do IT? Is that what you're saying?

    That's just mental that is.
    Er, I never said that - you did.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  4. #174
    SPN SPN is offline

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    17,608

    Quote Originally Posted by Humbert View Post
    Examples of such countries?
    Germany and Holland are two that spring to mind.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  5. #175
    loner loner is offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    7,399

    Cost Price--55 million Sale Price 70.000 Storage CostsGog only knows but certainly above the million mark. .F**K FF the stupid bastards---and to think of the fat pensions and lump sum for the clowns responsible.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  6. #176
    EvotingMachine0197 EvotingMachine0197 is offline
    EvotingMachine0197's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    13,938

    Quote Originally Posted by Humbert View Post
    Er, I never said that - you did.
    OK.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  7. #177
    RainyDay RainyDay is offline

    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    2,647

    Quote Originally Posted by Humbert View Post
    It's actually a bad day for the country - Ireland has been positioning itself as the IT capital of the world and it can't put in place the kind of system that works in loads of different countries but must rely on paper and pencil with an inbuilt-error and proneness to manipulation.

    So the first system didn't work? They should have fixed it or gotten another.

    Very sad - another blow to the 'Paddy can do it' spirit.
    The current system is not prone to error or manipulation. It is an open, transparent and trusted system. The accuracy of the system can be seen by any voter who is not blind.

    What is the business benefit of going for an electronic system? Why should we spend €50 million or so?

    Quote Originally Posted by SPN View Post
    The "many gaping holes" had been long exposed during the testing performed by the Department over many years. The Committee hearings in December 2003 were hearing independent IT experts giving their judgement on the problems that had been made public under FOI.
    That's not true. The tests commissioned by Dept were 'unit tests' - tests of each individual component. This exposed some of the flaws, but some of the more serious flaws were not exposed until the Dept released the reports of the two rounds of end-to-end testing that the ran. These reports only came out AFTER the orders had been place.

    Quote Originally Posted by SPN View Post
    Cullen was told by the Committee to refrain from placing the order until all the technical issues had been addressed.
    Not true. The committee voted 9-4 “That the joint committee endorse the efforts on electronic voting made to date by both the Minister and his Department”.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  8. #178
    SPN SPN is offline

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    17,608

    Quote Originally Posted by RainyDay View Post
    The current system is not prone to error or manipulation. It is an open, transparent and trusted system. The accuracy of the system can be seen by any voter who is not blind.
    It is error prone.

    50,000 odd FFailure voters invalidate their ballots by putting Xs or 1s against all FFailure candidates. (FG have a similiar problem)




    What is the business benefit of going for an electronic system? Why should we spend €50 million or so?
    Someone powerful can skim off a €20 million profit margin?




    That's not true. The tests commissioned by Dept were 'unit tests' - tests of each individual component. This exposed some of the flaws, but some of the more serious flaws were not exposed until the Dept released the reports of the two rounds of end-to-end testing that the ran. These reports only came out AFTER the orders had been place.
    It very much is true.

    a) The Department conducted two end-to-end tests using ballot papers from Buncrana UDC and Athy UDC in January 2002. Both tests were abject failures.

    b) They also ran three live tests in the May 2002 General Election. Two of the three were abject failures, and the detailed report for the third has never been released.

    You are correct that the Department did not release these reports (April 2004) until after the Orders had been placed (December 2003), but I never claimed that the had. I stated that the experts made their case based on material that had been released under FOI - which is true.




    Not true. The committee voted 9-4 “That the joint committee endorse the efforts on electronic voting made to date by both the Minister and his Department”.
    Very much true.

    That vote was taken to reverse the previous position of the Committee - which is what I referred to.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  9. #179
    RainyDay RainyDay is offline

    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    2,647

    Quote Originally Posted by SPN View Post
    Let's reflect again on the names of the nine gobsh:tes who voted to authorise the Purchase Order for the eVoting machines.

    Feel free to smack them in the gob if you ever meet them.
    That's a great point. Kelliher is still at TD, so I'll make a 'Thanks for pi$$ing away €50m' call to his office. Are any of the others still around?

    Quote Originally Posted by SPN View Post
    It is error prone.
    50,000 odd FFailure voters invalidate their ballots by putting Xs or 1s against all FFailure candidates. (FG have a similiar problem)
    I'd love to see your source for these figures. The total spoilt vote rate is about 1%, give or take. The works out at somewhere around 500-800 votes per constituency - nowhere near the figures you quote. I've done a fair bit of tallying, and the number of votes that I've seen with multiple Xs or 1s is quite low - a handful really.
    Quote Originally Posted by SPN View Post
    Someone powerful can skim off a €20 million profit margin?
    You could be right, though I'm more inclined to believe that incompetence and ignorance were behind these decisions, rather than fraud or corruption.

    Quote Originally Posted by SPN View Post
    It very much is true.

    a) The Department conducted two end-to-end tests using ballot papers from Buncrana UDC and Athy UDC in January 2002. Both tests were abject failures.

    b) They also ran three live tests in the May 2002 General Election. Two of the three were abject failures, and the detailed report for the third has never been released.

    You are correct that the Department did not release these reports (April 2004) until after the Orders had been placed (December 2003), but I never claimed that the had. I stated that the experts made their case based on material that had been released under FOI - which is true.
    Let me rephrase - your comment didn't give a full and complete picture of what happened. The Buncrana and Athy results were not in the public domain at that stage. All the results from the live tests was not in the public domain at that stage. The Dept had deliberately held back the most damaging information.


    Quote Originally Posted by SPN View Post
    Very much true.

    That vote was taken to reverse the previous position of the Committee - which is what I referred to.
    Absolutely untrue. The Comittee never had a previous position. There was no previous vote on the matter. The only vote the committee took was the vote to endorse, on the 18th Dec,
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  10. #180
    LTLCHG LTLCHG is offline

    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    653

    Quote Originally Posted by Iarmhi Gael View Post
    more wastage.

    should be put into a museum so we could have a look at them.
    Not sure if you are joking or not, but I think at least one should be in a museum. If we don't take the opportunity to learn from our mistakes we are doomed to repeat them. *cough* expensive proprietary postcode system * cough *
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

Page 18 of 30 FirstFirst ... 81617181920 28 ... LastLast
Sign in to CommentRegister to Comment