Electronic election counts here to stay
 |
| BALLOT FORM SCANNERS: Here to stay |
Electronic counting of elections is set to continue, despite the computerised system's contribution to the
fiasco of last year's Holyrood elections.
The Scottish Government wants to continue using the ballot form scanners, but admits public confidence will require better preparation.
Ministers eventually want to introduce the same complex counting system for Holyrood as introduced for councils last year, and that would require
e-counting for Holyrood too.
After a by-election in South Lanarkshire was stalled earlier this month by computer problems, it was conceded that manual counting is better in by-elections, given the smaller number of votes cast.
The decision forms part of the response from Parliament Minister Bruce Crawford to the Gould report into last year's election debacle, in which nearly 150,000 Holyrood and 40,000 council ballot forms were counted as spoiled, while computers jammed and results were delayed.
With improved design, testing and project management, the official response said: "The Scottish Government believes that electronic counting can successfully and reliably be used at future local government elections in Scotland. It will continue to encourage the use of electronic counting."
Mr Crawford has indicated he favours the recommendation by Canadian elections expert Ron Gould that votes can be cast at one polling
station in the two weeks before the election.
While Scottish ministers are undecided on many of the recommendations from Gould, there is a hint that they favour the postponement of vote counts until the day after elections instead of overnight, saying the accuracy of the count is of "the utmost importance".
There was also a concession that the SNP's device to put "Alex Salmond for First Minister" at the top of Holyrood's regional list will not be possible again.
The Scottish Government accepts registered party names must appear most prominently, and descriptions below that should be "preferably without using specific individuals' names".
The most decisive element of Mr Crawford's response
was to split future Holyrood elections from council ones, with legislation planned for next year. As disclosed last weekend, the Scottish Government's preference is for the next council election to take place in 2012, a year after Holyrood, and again in 2017, then settling into a pattern of elections every four years, alternating every two years with the Scottish Parliament.
The proposal warns this could make the council elections into a mid-term test of future Holyrood administration's popularity.
It opens up other possible ways of splitting the votes, including having a council ballot in the November following Holyrood's election.
The Scottish Government also wants to pick up Gould's idea of a chief returning officer for Scotland, but warns that would only be logical if that person handles all elections, and Whitehall ministers continue to set policy for both Holyrood and Westminster elections.
The SNP wants the Scotland Office to accept the
recommendation that one administration should be responsible for all elections.
© All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without
permission is prohibited.
Posted by: subrosa on 12:02am Thu 20 Mar 08
Mistake. I don't trust machine counting. It's only as honest as the software.
Mistake. I don't trust machine counting. It's only as honest as the software.
Posted by: Duns Scotus, The Borders on 12:04am Thu 20 Mar 08
What checks are made on their accuracy? Can they be programmed to say, allocate every 20th vote for one party to another?
I'm thinking of the computerised financial scams where odd pennies are creamed off to a separate account. After millions of transactions, mony a mickle maks a muckle.
What checks are made on their accuracy? Can they be programmed to say, allocate every 20th vote for one party to another?
I'm thinking of the computerised financial scams where odd pennies are creamed off to a separate account. After millions of transactions, mony a mickle maks a muckle.
Posted by: Brian Blessed, Glasgow on 12:09am Thu 20 Mar 08
Eire manages to complete 90%+ of the Dail election within 24 hours of the polls closing, and only starts counting at 10am the following day, yet uses Single Transferrable Vote as well.
Do fingers and calculators somehow operate faster across the Irish Sea?
And as for open-ness and transparency - here's only the latest rebuttal to that from the US:
tinyurl.com/26p2xc
Apparently democratic accountability comes further down the list of priorities than commercial confidentiality.
Eire manages to complete 90%+ of the Dail election within 24 hours of the polls closing, and only starts counting at 10am the following day, yet uses Single Transferrable Vote as well.
Do fingers and calculators somehow operate faster across the Irish Sea?
And as for open-ness and transparency - here's only the latest rebuttal to that from the US:
tinyurl.com/26p2xc
Apparently democratic accountability comes further down the list of priorities than commercial confidentiality.
Posted by: tris, scotland on 12:16am Thu 20 Mar 08
Brian, it seems almost everything can be done better by the Irish.
I wouldn't trsut them. Mr Kinnock and Mr Blunket are directors of the company who supply them with dodgy softwear.
Now I'm thinking second hand car salesman, and snake oil salesman there. mNo offence intended... actually it's a bit of a compliment.
Brian, it seems almost everything can be done better by the Irish.
I wouldn't trsut them. Mr Kinnock and Mr Blunket are directors of the company who supply them with dodgy softwear.
Now I'm thinking second hand car salesman, and snake oil salesman there. mNo offence intended... actually it's a bit of a compliment.
Posted by: Neil, Aberdeenshire on 12:18am Thu 20 Mar 08
As long as the original ballots remain available for auditing (i.e. the original vote is cast on a piece of paper, not entered directly into a computer by the voter) I am quite comfortable with electronic counting.
As long as the original ballots remain available for auditing (i.e. the original vote is cast on a piece of paper, not entered directly into a computer by the voter) I am quite comfortable with electronic counting.
Posted by: doonhamer on 12:21am Thu 20 Mar 08
[quote][bold]tris[/bold] wrote:
Brian, it seems almost everything can be done better by the Irish. I wouldn't trsut them. Mr Kinnock and Mr Blunket are directors of the company who supply them with dodgy softwear. Now I'm thinking second hand car salesman, and snake oil salesman there. mNo offence intended... actually it's a bit of a compliment. [/quote] I am sorry but I believe that you have just insulted second hand car salesmen and snake oil salesmen.
tris wrote:
Brian, it seems almost everything can be done better by the Irish. I wouldn't trsut them. Mr Kinnock and Mr Blunket are directors of the company who supply them with dodgy softwear. Now I'm thinking second hand car salesman, and snake oil salesman there. mNo offence intended... actually it's a bit of a compliment.
I am sorry but I believe that you have just insulted second hand car salesmen and snake oil salesmen.
Posted by: rob4i, Scottish Borders on 12:53am Thu 20 Mar 08
History teaches us nothing!
History teaches us nothing!
Posted by: stevie, glasgow on 1:20am Thu 20 Mar 08
Of course Alex wants to continue using these scanners he won the bloody election because of them.
Of course Alex wants to continue using these scanners he won the bloody election because of them.
Posted by: Archie, Scotland on 1:43am Thu 20 Mar 08
No Stevie,
The SNP WON the election despite the scanners and the pro-unionist anti and non Scottish media like the Daily Rubbish, All the Shhhh you know wot under the Sun and the BBC.
Are you a Nu- Lab spinner by any chance?
No Stevie,
The SNP WON the election despite the scanners and the pro-unionist anti and non Scottish media like the Daily Rubbish, All the Shhhh you know wot under the Sun and the BBC.
Are you a Nu- Lab spinner by any chance?
Posted by: jonny bond, glasgow on 3:02am Thu 20 Mar 08
Wonderful is it not a fact that people who have never voted because they felt there was not a party that even came close to being good for the country or even a little honest will now all vote for whoever steals their vote. Its sick.
Wonderful is it not a fact that people who have never voted because they felt there was not a party that even came close to being good for the country or even a little honest will now all vote for whoever steals their vote. Its sick.
Posted by: Scunnert, Travelling in Nihlon on 3:08am Thu 20 Mar 08
This is the end of democracy. There is only one reason to have e-voting and that is to steal elections. Whoever controls the software controls the outcome. This is a major mistake on the part of the SNP.
This is the end of democracy. There is only one reason to have e-voting and that is to steal elections. Whoever controls the software controls the outcome. This is a major mistake on the part of the SNP.
Posted by: Davy, Erskine on 5:47am Thu 20 Mar 08
Since not one 'Scottish' Labour M.P. could be bothered voting against the Post Office closures, the way they are going, they need'nt bother putting up any candidates come the next election, whether it's electronically controlled or not.
Since not one 'Scottish' Labour M.P. could be bothered voting against the Post Office closures, the way they are going, they need'nt bother putting up any candidates come the next election, whether it's electronically controlled or not.
Posted by: Wardog, Buckie on 6:12am Thu 20 Mar 08
The recommendation by Canadian elections expert Ron Gould that votes can be cast at one polling station in the two weeks before the election. does sounds a good option to open up the opportunity for voter participation and to achieve a higher head count.
Will Labour accept ALL of the recommendations?
Not if messrs Browne + Brown have anything to do with it.
The recommendation by Canadian elections expert Ron Gould that votes can be cast at one polling station in the two weeks before the election. does sounds a good option to open up the opportunity for voter participation and to achieve a higher head count.
Will Labour accept ALL of the recommendations?
Not if messrs Browne + Brown have anything to do with it.
Posted by: Vera Smart on 6:38am Thu 20 Mar 08
NO!
I thought we'd seen the back of these wrretched counting machines. I simply don't trust them and we definitely don't need them. So why take the risk with out democratic right to vote and those which numpty 'represents' us?
Here's an idea - keep a note of who votes [bold]for[/bold] electronic counting in the Scottish Parliament and then vote against them . Hit them where it hurts - right in the ballot box.
NO!
I thought we'd seen the back of these wrretched counting machines. I simply don't trust them and we definitely don't need them. So why take the risk with out democratic right to vote and those which numpty 'represents' us?
Here's an idea - keep a note of who votes
for electronic counting in the Scottish Parliament and then vote against them . Hit them where it hurts - right in the ballot box.
Posted by: Vera Smart on 6:39am Thu 20 Mar 08
sorry 'those' should = choose
sorry 'those' should = choose
Posted by: Donald Anderson, glasgow on 6:48am Thu 20 Mar 08
The Kinnockio system did it again Cambuskang, home of the Labour Mafia.
The Kinnockio system did it again Cambuskang, home of the Labour Mafia.
Posted by: Meep, Shawlands on 7:38am Thu 20 Mar 08
This should be taken to the high court. The Diebold counting machine scandal in the states, have given us enough material to show that the machines can be easily hacked into and give fraudulent figures.
This should be taken to the high court. The Diebold counting machine scandal in the states, have given us enough material to show that the machines can be easily hacked into and give fraudulent figures.
Posted by: redleb, aberdeen on 7:52am Thu 20 Mar 08
I think this is dreadfull news. If universal suffrage is a key component of democracy, then surely universal count and audit is also necessary. Every single elector should be equally empowered to count and check the vote. Qualification in computer science must not be a prerequisite. To suggest that a speedy result improves democracy is nonsense.
I think this is dreadfull news. If universal suffrage is a key component of democracy, then surely universal count and audit is also necessary. Every single elector should be equally empowered to count and check the vote. Qualification in computer science must not be a prerequisite. To suggest that a speedy result improves democracy is nonsense.
Posted by: crieff resident, strathearn on 8:06am Thu 20 Mar 08
I remember when I voted last May I was given a numbered form which the teller then wrote against my name in the electoral register. Before that they simply put a tick by the name to indicate I had voted. My question is this: They now know which way I (and everyone else) voted in that election. Why do they need to know this?
I remember when I voted last May I was given a numbered form which the teller then wrote against my name in the electoral register. Before that they simply put a tick by the name to indicate I had voted. My question is this: They now know which way I (and everyone else) voted in that election. Why do they need to know this?
Posted by: Politically-incorrec
t Man, Glasgow on 8:14am Thu 20 Mar 08
Both manual and electronic systems rely on the electorate's trust - both are therefore inherently flawed.
I do however object to paying money to Neil Kinnock and his pals.
Both manual and electronic systems rely on the electorate's trust - both are therefore inherently flawed.
I do however object to paying money to Neil Kinnock and his pals.
Posted by: oldmack, Scotland on 8:15am Thu 20 Mar 08
Now “Vera Smart” is no very smart the Cambuslang foul up was down to the naivety of the company running the counting machines, they did not renew the licence to run the software which had an anti-piracy section built in.
In order to run successfully an electronic counting system, there has to be a great deal of built in security. We can not have any perceived or otherwise inside political interference or gain; this all starts with the paper and the personnel at the poling stations.
Guidance to the electorate must be available before the Election Day; the paper must be run through the electronic machines and the operators must have enough knowledge of procedures and machines to run the operation successfully.
The farce last year started at the poling stations when the voters were allowed to fold the paper before placing it in the box, a folded paper then jammed the machine; a technician was then required to clear the machine, clearing the machine lost in some cases three papers damaged and torn.
Now “Vera Smart” is no very smart the Cambuslang foul up was down to the naivety of the company running the counting machines, they did not renew the licence to run the software which had an anti-piracy section built in.
In order to run successfully an electronic counting system, there has to be a great deal of built in security. We can not have any perceived or otherwise inside political interference or gain; this all starts with the paper and the personnel at the poling stations.
Guidance to the electorate must be available before the Election Day; the paper must be run through the electronic machines and the operators must have enough knowledge of procedures and machines to run the operation successfully.
The farce last year started at the poling stations when the voters were allowed to fold the paper before placing it in the box, a folded paper then jammed the machine; a technician was then required to clear the machine, clearing the machine lost in some cases three papers damaged and torn.
Posted by: Jock in the Box, edinburgh on 8:22am Thu 20 Mar 08
The software is only as accurate as whoever wrote it, presumably, and coupled to extensive testing,which clearly does not always happen.
There has to be an independent assessmet before you can say the system is safe.Who is independent?Certainl
y not the electoral commission!
So far what we can say is its anything but safe,or was it just Douglas Alexander displaying the family tradition of depositing both feet in ones own mouth simultaneously,and not having a leg to stand on?
Weighing the papers would be more accurate than relying upon luck,since it would at least be approximate.
One more reason why Labour will favour peresevering with this ,since any error must surely favour the Unionists since there are increasingly less every day.
Of course the Labour vote will be much harder to penetrate than the Tory was,and the Lib Dem will shortly be.
The Labour voters are firmly of the opinion that New Labour represents their interests,but few of them can actually say why,and of course you have the traditional Labour familiies,some of whom have been voting Labour even before Keir Hardie and Cunningham Graham founded the party!
Now that is what I call loyalty!
Perhaps the real problem here is, in order to establish whether this system has peformed accurately or not,beyond absolute doubt ,we will probably need to at least sample if not completely count manually!
The software is only as accurate as whoever wrote it, presumably, and coupled to extensive testing,which clearly does not always happen.
There has to be an independent assessmet before you can say the system is safe.Who is independent?Certainl
y not the electoral commission!
So far what we can say is its anything but safe,or was it just Douglas Alexander displaying the family tradition of depositing both feet in ones own mouth simultaneously,and not having a leg to stand on?
Weighing the papers would be more accurate than relying upon luck,since it would at least be approximate.
One more reason why Labour will favour peresevering with this ,since any error must surely favour the Unionists since there are increasingly less every day.
Of course the Labour vote will be much harder to penetrate than the Tory was,and the Lib Dem will shortly be.
The Labour voters are firmly of the opinion that New Labour represents their interests,but few of them can actually say why,and of course you have the traditional Labour familiies,some of whom have been voting Labour even before Keir Hardie and Cunningham Graham founded the party!
Now that is what I call loyalty!
Perhaps the real problem here is, in order to establish whether this system has peformed accurately or not,beyond absolute doubt ,we will probably need to at least sample if not completely count manually!
Posted by: sid the sceptic, renfrewshire on 8:52am Thu 20 Mar 08
morning all : as i have said before : " voting is not democratic it's the counting!!!" i suppose when it looks like your going to get humped at the ballot box you will do anything to stay in power.
morning all : as i have said before : " voting is not democratic it's the counting!!!" i suppose when it looks like your going to get humped at the ballot box you will do anything to stay in power.
Posted by: Edward, Edinburgh on 9:00am Thu 20 Mar 08
As someone mentioned in this forum, its all about trust, regardless of the counting method, wether its by hand or machine.
But what must be insured is that neither local or government elections are done on the same day. That the software and machines are NOT provided by companies that have Labour (or any other) politicians on its board. Then perhaps we will have a modecum of trust restored. I also think control of ALL elections and referenda come under the control of the Scottish parliament, this would also help with the trust.
As someone mentioned in this forum, its all about trust, regardless of the counting method, wether its by hand or machine.
But what must be insured is that neither local or government elections are done on the same day. That the software and machines are NOT provided by companies that have Labour (or any other) politicians on its board. Then perhaps we will have a modecum of trust restored. I also think control of ALL elections and referenda come under the control of the Scottish parliament, this would also help with the trust.
Posted by: dws on 9:31am Thu 20 Mar 08
Ah, for God's sake - was nothing learned last May? Leave the counting to humans - it takes longer but there's not as many f*ck-ups.
P.S. I wouldn't trust Neil Kinnock to find his own erse with both hands and a torch, if he's involved, we're all buggered.
Ah, for God's sake - was nothing learned last May? Leave the counting to humans - it takes longer but there's not as many f*ck-ups.
P.S. I wouldn't trust Neil Kinnock to find his own erse with both hands and a torch, if he's involved, we're all buggered.
Posted by: exile, far away on 9:39am Thu 20 Mar 08
I think the next Westminster, Holyrood and local elections in Scotland should all be monitored by election monitors from the OSCE or the Council of Europe. I wouldn't trust any UK government or the NuLab electoral commssion as far as I can spit. How about it SNP? Put in an official resquest now and start the ball rolling.
I think the next Westminster, Holyrood and local elections in Scotland should all be monitored by election monitors from the OSCE or the Council of Europe. I wouldn't trust any UK government or the NuLab electoral commssion as far as I can spit. How about it SNP? Put in an official resquest now and start the ball rolling.
Posted by: McSomeone, Scotland on 9:42am Thu 20 Mar 08
[bold]Subrosa[/bold] wrote:
[quote]Mistake. I don't trust machine counting. It's only as honest as the software.[/quote]
No it's as only as honest as the company that wrote and owns the software.
I will never trust any poll counted by computer, if Diebold in the US has taught us anything, it's that elections can be managed to suit the wishes of the ruling elite and not the public.
Subrosa wrote:
Mistake. I don't trust machine counting. It's only as honest as the software.
No it's as only as honest as the company that wrote and owns the software.
I will never trust any poll counted by computer, if Diebold in the US has taught us anything, it's that elections can be managed to suit the wishes of the ruling elite and not the public.
Posted by: OHO, Glasgow on 11:16am Thu 20 Mar 08
Didn't I watch on TV recently, some country conducting elections and the voters were individually feeding their voting slip into the machine - and it was meant to be a country that was less advanced than we (supposedly) are. I want to be able to put my cross on the paper, feed it into the machine and for the machine to tell me that my vote has been accepted BEFORE I leave the polling booth. That way, the result can be instantaneous at the poll closure but anyone whose vote cannot be properly read or has not completed the task properly can have additional guidance to be able to do it properly.
Didn't I watch on TV recently, some country conducting elections and the voters were individually feeding their voting slip into the machine - and it was meant to be a country that was less advanced than we (supposedly) are. I want to be able to put my cross on the paper, feed it into the machine and for the machine to tell me that my vote has been accepted BEFORE I leave the polling booth. That way, the result can be instantaneous at the poll closure but anyone whose vote cannot be properly read or has not completed the task properly can have additional guidance to be able to do it properly.
Posted by: Jock Politicaljunkie, Glasgow on 11:40am Thu 20 Mar 08
[quote][bold]McSomeone[/bold] wrote:
[bold]Subrosa[/bold] wrote: [quote]Mistake. I don't trust machine counting. It's only as honest as the software.[/quote] No it's as only as honest as the company that wrote and owns the software. I will never trust any poll counted by computer, if Diebold in the US has taught us anything, it's that elections can be managed to suit the wishes of the ruling elite and not the public.[/quote] I have a very bad feeling about this.
I hope we are not to be stuck with these machines because of some long term contract signed by Liebour. IF THAT IS THE CASE then for the sake of democracy it should be paid up and they should be shown the door. Do you trust Liebour in the light of all the scandal recently?!?
I don't.
I'm no Luddite but I DO NOT WANT THESE MACHINES anywhere near ANY election where I am voting. Many have suggested theat the software could be controlled to the advantage of any party (with Kinnock on the board, no doubt the Liebour Party). The possibility, after audit, of discovery would be high however. WHAT COULD be done with little fear of discovery, however, would be to programme the machines to different decrees of acceptance of spoilt ballots.
Any non liebour ballot with ANY extra mark (even a dirty smudge) could be binned whilst ALL liebour ballots could be accepted on a far looser interpretation. Just think 140,000 extra votes up for grabs!
McSomeone wrote:
Subrosa wrote: Mistake. I don't trust machine counting. It's only as honest as the software.
No it's as only as honest as the company that wrote and owns the software. I will never trust any poll counted by computer, if Diebold in the US has taught us anything, it's that elections can be managed to suit the wishes of the ruling elite and not the public.
I have a very bad feeling about this.
I hope we are not to be stuck with these machines because of some long term contract signed by Liebour. IF THAT IS THE CASE then for the sake of democracy it should be paid up and they should be shown the door. Do you trust Liebour in the light of all the scandal recently?!?
I don't.
I'm no Luddite but I DO NOT WANT THESE MACHINES anywhere near ANY election where I am voting. Many have suggested theat the software could be controlled to the advantage of any party (with Kinnock on the board, no doubt the Liebour Party). The possibility, after audit, of discovery would be high however. WHAT COULD be done with little fear of discovery, however, would be to programme the machines to different decrees of acceptance of spoilt ballots.
Any non liebour ballot with ANY extra mark (even a dirty smudge) could be binned whilst ALL liebour ballots could be accepted on a far looser interpretation. Just think 140,000 extra votes up for grabs!
Posted by: AyrshireScot, South Ayrshire on 11:47am Thu 20 Mar 08
[quote][bold]OHO[/bold] wrote:
Didn't I watch on TV recently, some country conducting elections and the voters were individually feeding their voting slip into the machine - and it was meant to be a country that was less advanced than we (supposedly) are. I want to be able to put my cross on the paper, feed it into the machine and for the machine to tell me that my vote has been accepted BEFORE I leave the polling booth. That way, the result can be instantaneous at the poll closure but anyone whose vote cannot be properly read or has not completed the task properly can have additional guidance to be able to do it properly. [/quote] A very sensible suggestion, OHO. Your proposal of having a confirmation that your vote has been counted, or immediate notification of a poblem which could then be fixed, would sort out the problem of uncounted and alot of mistakenly completed ballots.
OHO wrote:
Didn't I watch on TV recently, some country conducting elections and the voters were individually feeding their voting slip into the machine - and it was meant to be a country that was less advanced than we (supposedly) are. I want to be able to put my cross on the paper, feed it into the machine and for the machine to tell me that my vote has been accepted BEFORE I leave the polling booth. That way, the result can be instantaneous at the poll closure but anyone whose vote cannot be properly read or has not completed the task properly can have additional guidance to be able to do it properly.
A very sensible suggestion, OHO. Your proposal of having a confirmation that your vote has been counted, or immediate notification of a poblem which could then be fixed, would sort out the problem of uncounted and alot of mistakenly completed ballots.
Posted by: tris, scotland on 1:08pm Thu 20 Mar 08
[quote][bold]doonhamer[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]tris[/bold] wrote: Brian, it seems almost everything can be done better by the Irish. I wouldn't trsut them. Mr Kinnock and Mr Blunket are directors of the company who supply them with dodgy softwear. Now I'm thinking second hand car salesman, and snake oil salesman there. mNo offence intended... actually it's a bit of a compliment. [/quote] I am sorry but I believe that you have just insulted second hand car salesmen and snake oil salesmen. [/quote]
Yes... I think I did... so deepest apologies to second had car, and snake oil salesmen. It was late at night and I wasn't thinking straight.
Someone pointed out that you had to have trust, no matter which system you used.
I have more trust in rooms full of individuals, counting bits of paper, than I do for a machine which may well have been tampered with by a company with ex-politicians on it's board (regardless of party).
doonhamer wrote:
tris wrote: Brian, it seems almost everything can be done better by the Irish. I wouldn't trsut them. Mr Kinnock and Mr Blunket are directors of the company who supply them with dodgy softwear. Now I'm thinking second hand car salesman, and snake oil salesman there. mNo offence intended... actually it's a bit of a compliment.
I am sorry but I believe that you have just insulted second hand car salesmen and snake oil salesmen.
Yes... I think I did... so deepest apologies to second had car, and snake oil salesmen. It was late at night and I wasn't thinking straight.
Someone pointed out that you had to have trust, no matter which system you used.
I have more trust in rooms full of individuals, counting bits of paper, than I do for a machine which may well have been tampered with by a company with ex-politicians on it's board (regardless of party).
Posted by: Harry, Bishopbriggs on 1:21pm Thu 20 Mar 08
I have to agree that voting is too important to be counted by any other method than by manual counting. I have read the story of how Dubyah's brother fixed George's election by electronically discarding the votes of blacks in certain areas where the combination of variables suggested that they would vote Democrat. By the time they found out that their votes had been rejected George's finger was already on the button. The world is now paying the price for that bit of programming, in spades.
The company who fixed up this program is working in the UK and actually does work for UK Goverment departments already. People in free countries need to stand up and stop these people while we have some freedom left. Refusing to accept this system would be a start.
I have to agree that voting is too important to be counted by any other method than by manual counting. I have read the story of how Dubyah's brother fixed George's election by electronically discarding the votes of blacks in certain areas where the combination of variables suggested that they would vote Democrat. By the time they found out that their votes had been rejected George's finger was already on the button. The world is now paying the price for that bit of programming, in spades.
The company who fixed up this program is working in the UK and actually does work for UK Goverment departments already. People in free countries need to stand up and stop these people while we have some freedom left. Refusing to accept this system would be a start.
Posted by: Neil, Aberdeenshire on 1:46pm Thu 20 Mar 08
Do you realise how many manual recounts will be required to determine the outcome of an STV election such as a council election if we do not go for machine counting?
I agree with many of the reservations about vote rigging, which is why I said earlier there has to be a paper trail (something missing from American-style electronic [i]voting[/i] machines). As long as the vote is registered on a piece of paper which can be stored for future auditing I do not worry much about how it is counted, and I can see the strong advantage of a computerised system for an STV election.
Do you realise how many manual recounts will be required to determine the outcome of an STV election such as a council election if we do not go for machine counting?
I agree with many of the reservations about vote rigging, which is why I said earlier there has to be a paper trail (something missing from American-style electronic voting machines). As long as the vote is registered on a piece of paper which can be stored for future auditing I do not worry much about how it is counted, and I can see the strong advantage of a computerised system for an STV election.
Posted by: Scunnert, Travelling in Nihlon on 1:55pm Thu 20 Mar 08
[quote][bold]crieff resident[/bold] wrote:
I remember when I voted last May I was given a numbered form which the teller then wrote against my name in the electoral register. Before that they simply put a tick by the name to indicate I had voted. My question is this: They now know which way I (and everyone else) voted in that election. Why do they need to know this?[/quote] I was a polling officer in the first EU Parliamentary elections. It was the first and last time I did that. I was horrified to find that votes were tagged in this way - so much for secret ballots eh? Now we'll have machines deciding how you voted. What a farce.
crieff resident wrote:
I remember when I voted last May I was given a numbered form which the teller then wrote against my name in the electoral register. Before that they simply put a tick by the name to indicate I had voted. My question is this: They now know which way I (and everyone else) voted in that election. Why do they need to know this?
I was a polling officer in the first EU Parliamentary elections. It was the first and last time I did that. I was horrified to find that votes were tagged in this way - so much for secret ballots eh? Now we'll have machines deciding how you voted. What a farce.
Posted by: Jock Politicaljunkie, Glasgow on 3:07pm Thu 20 Mar 08
I've though about these machines some more and have read all the posts -
I STILL have a very bad feeling about this.
Neil in Aberdeen (1:46pm) worries about the number of recounts if we go with manual counting.
SO WHAT. What price a transparent trustworthy system?
Manual counting has served us well and there aren't that many recounts. As Brian Blessed in Glasgow (12:09am) points out, it does not seem to hinder the Irish. And they have STV for their National Elections. If you think STV is such a problem why not adopt the D'Hundt system for local elections too. The puplic [italic]may even[/italic] learn how it works and not be confussed by differing systems.
So, from me at least, [bold]BIN THE MACHINES[/bold] . This is an Orwellian step TOO FAR.
I've though about these machines some more and have read all the posts -
I STILL have a very bad feeling about this.
Neil in Aberdeen (1:46pm) worries about the number of recounts if we go with manual counting.
SO WHAT. What price a transparent trustworthy system?
Manual counting has served us well and there aren't that many recounts. As Brian Blessed in Glasgow (12:09am) points out, it does not seem to hinder the Irish. And they have STV for their National Elections. If you think STV is such a problem why not adopt the D'Hundt system for local elections too. The puplic
may even learn how it works and not be confussed by differing systems.
So, from me at least,
BIN THE MACHINES . This is an Orwellian step TOO FAR.
Posted by: florence, Edinburgh on 3:18pm Thu 20 Mar 08
Bad idea, SNP, to continue with a flawed system. Manual counting, please!
Bad idea, SNP, to continue with a flawed system. Manual counting, please!
Posted by: alexparade, Glasgow on 3:56pm Thu 20 Mar 08
Headline should read: "Electronic Counts here to stay - democracy a thing of the past."
When will these governments learn that computers are not the solution to everything, but a threat to the fabric of our society?
People losing their jobs and being forced in to false sales jobs, and the constant failure of these computers pose a significant threat to our society. You only have to look at the dumbing down of banks to see how true this is. Computers have outlived their usefulness - it is time for the people to fight back!
Headline should read: "Electronic Counts here to stay - democracy a thing of the past."
When will these governments learn that computers are not the solution to everything, but a threat to the fabric of our society?
People losing their jobs and being forced in to false sales jobs, and the constant failure of these computers pose a significant threat to our society. You only have to look at the dumbing down of banks to see how true this is. Computers have outlived their usefulness - it is time for the people to fight back!
Posted by: Neil, Aberdeenshire on 4:13pm Thu 20 Mar 08
How did you manage to post that comment without a computer?
How did you manage to post that comment without a computer?
Posted by: Harry, Bishopbriggs on 4:43pm Thu 20 Mar 08
[quote][bold]alexparade[/bold] wrote:
Headline should read: "Electronic Counts here to stay - democracy a thing of the past." When will these governments learn that computers are not the solution to everything, but a threat to the fabric of our society? People losing their jobs and being forced in to false sales jobs, and the constant failure of these computers pose a significant threat to our society. You only have to look at the dumbing down of banks to see how true this is. Computers have outlived their usefulness - it is time for the people to fight back![/quote] Alex,
people used to say that money was the root of all evil when they should have been saying that it was the missuse of money. It's the same with computers, they are a great advance and as Neil above says they let you post here, but they can be misused by manipulative people to gain themselves power that they are not worthy of.
Neil,
Our leaders have to be elected by open voting that everyone can see and demand checks on.
My work takes me to dictatorships that call their leaders party "The Peoples Democratic --etc.". Every vote is a farce with the opposition forced to withdraw or the people given an offer they can't refuse at the ballot station.
Once they can control our votes electronically, and some on here have qouted instances of the voting slip number being recorded against the voters name already, the road between our free society and a simillar dictatorship is shortened considerably. Please don't think it can't happen here.
alexparade wrote:
Headline should read: "Electronic Counts here to stay - democracy a thing of the past." When will these governments learn that computers are not the solution to everything, but a threat to the fabric of our society? People losing their jobs and being forced in to false sales jobs, and the constant failure of these computers pose a significant threat to our society. You only have to look at the dumbing down of banks to see how true this is. Computers have outlived their usefulness - it is time for the people to fight back!
Alex,
people used to say that money was the root of all evil when they should have been saying that it was the missuse of money. It's the same with computers, they are a great advance and as Neil above says they let you post here, but they can be misused by manipulative people to gain themselves power that they are not worthy of.
Neil,
Our leaders have to be elected by open voting that everyone can see and demand checks on.
My work takes me to dictatorships that call their leaders party "The Peoples Democratic --etc.". Every vote is a farce with the opposition forced to withdraw or the people given an offer they can't refuse at the ballot station.
Once they can control our votes electronically, and some on here have qouted instances of the voting slip number being recorded against the voters name already, the road between our free society and a simillar dictatorship is shortened considerably. Please don't think it can't happen here.
Posted by: Vera Smart on 6:10pm Thu 20 Mar 08
[quote]Now “Vera Smart” is no very smart the Cambuslang foul up was down to the naivety of the company running the counting machines, they did not renew the licence to run the software which had an anti-piracy section built in.[/quote] Wrong poster - I did not mention Cambuslang.
Get your facts right.
Now “Vera Smart” is no very smart the Cambuslang foul up was down to the naivety of the company running the counting machines, they did not renew the licence to run the software which had an anti-piracy section built in.
Wrong poster - I did not mention Cambuslang.
Get your facts right.
Posted by: Scottie, Troon on 7:38pm Thu 20 Mar 08
Electronic computerised voting has two main problems.
First, many systems have no audit trail, in particular they have no paper audit trail. This means that in the event of a dispute, there is no way to verify what was actually voted.
Secondly, and much more seriously, the system is what is called in computer security jargon, britlle. That is, only a small number of people need to be incompetent/dishones
t/malicious to produce a fraudulent result. This is because the algorithms used for counting are not public domain and are not subject to audit. Contrast this with manual voting, where the number of officials which would need to be subverted is enormous. Couple this with the first point and manual voting makes it extremely difficult to rig elections (note, not impossible, as the first election of Congressman L B Johnson showed when a ballot box was held back and stuffed to provide the votes needed for victory - see the book, A Path to Power for mor einformation on this). Given that such stuffing is now pretty nigh impossible under UK/Scottish conditions, manual election counting is pretty well foolproof at delivering a result from the number of votes submitted. This is NOT the case for any computerised system and we have to ask ourselves, why would anyone want to use it?
Possible answers are:
1. it is quick (if the software works)
2. it is unverifiable
3. it provides the opportunity to subvert the voting system
4. it has been sold by computer salesmen as a "good solution"
We must stand firm against this and insist on manual counts of votes or such vestiges of democracy that remain will disappear for ever.
Electronic computerised voting has two main problems.
First, many systems have no audit trail, in particular they have no paper audit trail. This means that in the event of a dispute, there is no way to verify what was actually voted.
Secondly, and much more seriously, the system is what is called in computer security jargon, britlle. That is, only a small number of people need to be incompetent/dishones
t/malicious to produce a fraudulent result. This is because the algorithms used for counting are not public domain and are not subject to audit. Contrast this with manual voting, where the number of officials which would need to be subverted is enormous. Couple this with the first point and manual voting makes it extremely difficult to rig elections (note, not impossible, as the first election of Congressman L B Johnson showed when a ballot box was held back and stuffed to provide the votes needed for victory - see the book, A Path to Power for mor einformation on this). Given that such stuffing is now pretty nigh impossible under UK/Scottish conditions, manual election counting is pretty well foolproof at delivering a result from the number of votes submitted. This is NOT the case for any computerised system and we have to ask ourselves, why would anyone want to use it?
Possible answers are:
1. it is quick (if the software works)
2. it is unverifiable
3. it provides the opportunity to subvert the voting system
4. it has been sold by computer salesmen as a "good solution"
We must stand firm against this and insist on manual counts of votes or such vestiges of democracy that remain will disappear for ever.
Posted by: Scottie, Troon on 7:39pm Thu 20 Mar 08
Electronic computerised voting has two main problems.
First, many systems have no audit trail, in particular they have no paper audit trail. This means that in the event of a dispute, there is no way to verify what was actually voted.
Secondly, and much more seriously, the system is what is called in computer security jargon, britlle. That is, only a small number of people need to be incompetent/dishones
t/malicious to produce a fraudulent result. This is because the algorithms used for counting are not public domain and are not subject to audit. Contrast this with manual voting, where the number of officials which would need to be subverted is enormous. Couple this with the first point and manual voting makes it extremely difficult to rig elections (note, not impossible, as the first election of Congressman L B Johnson showed when a ballot box was held back and stuffed to provide the votes needed for victory - see the book, A Path to Power for mor einformation on this). Given that such stuffing is now pretty nigh impossible under UK/Scottish conditions, manual election counting is pretty well foolproof at delivering a result from the number of votes submitted. This is NOT the case for any computerised system and we have to ask ourselves, why would anyone want to use it?
Possible answers are:
1. it is quick (if the software works)
2. it is unverifiable
3. it provides the opportunity to subvert the voting system
4. it has been sold by computer salesmen as a "good solution"
We must stand firm against this and insist on manual counts of votes or such vestiges of democracy that remain will disappear for ever.
Electronic computerised voting has two main problems.
First, many systems have no audit trail, in particular they have no paper audit trail. This means that in the event of a dispute, there is no way to verify what was actually voted.
Secondly, and much more seriously, the system is what is called in computer security jargon, britlle. That is, only a small number of people need to be incompetent/dishones
t/malicious to produce a fraudulent result. This is because the algorithms used for counting are not public domain and are not subject to audit. Contrast this with manual voting, where the number of officials which would need to be subverted is enormous. Couple this with the first point and manual voting makes it extremely difficult to rig elections (note, not impossible, as the first election of Congressman L B Johnson showed when a ballot box was held back and stuffed to provide the votes needed for victory - see the book, A Path to Power for mor einformation on this). Given that such stuffing is now pretty nigh impossible under UK/Scottish conditions, manual election counting is pretty well foolproof at delivering a result from the number of votes submitted. This is NOT the case for any computerised system and we have to ask ourselves, why would anyone want to use it?
Possible answers are:
1. it is quick (if the software works)
2. it is unverifiable
3. it provides the opportunity to subvert the voting system
4. it has been sold by computer salesmen as a "good solution"
We must stand firm against this and insist on manual counts of votes or such vestiges of democracy that remain will disappear for ever.
Posted by: Vera Smart on 9:23pm Thu 20 Mar 08
Here's what happened when authorities tried to investigate electronic voting irregularities in the US:
http://tinyurl.com/3
4fr5p
:(
Here's what happened when authorities tried to investigate electronic voting irregularities in the US:
http://tinyurl.com/3
4fr5p
:(
Posted by: Neil, Aberdeenshire on 11:37pm Thu 20 Mar 08
Would posters please stop conflating electronic voting (bad) with electronic counting of paper ballots (acceptable in my book).
Harry, I also work in some pretty undemocratic spots (I'm in one right now) so I know very well how democracy can be subverted and that we must be ever vigilant to protect even the imperfect democracy we have now.
Would posters please stop conflating electronic voting (bad) with electronic counting of paper ballots (acceptable in my book).
Harry, I also work in some pretty undemocratic spots (I'm in one right now) so I know very well how democracy can be subverted and that we must be ever vigilant to protect even the imperfect democracy we have now.
Posted by: subrosa on 12:44am Fri 21 Mar 08
Let's stick with our sociable manual counting. It's a good night out for some and possibly cheaper. Has anyone any idea of the cost of these machines in comparison with manual counting?
Also it's flawed.
Let's stick with our sociable manual counting. It's a good night out for some and possibly cheaper. Has anyone any idea of the cost of these machines in comparison with manual counting?
Also it's flawed.
Politics
INDEX
Comment | Read Comments (45)
