Re: Vote!
Re: Vote!
- Subject: Re: Vote!
- From: Martin Orpen <email@hidden>
- Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 12:00:23 +0100
On 18 Aug 2005, at 00:57, deivy petrescu wrote:
There is one very worrying bit about what you wrote above and
others have shared the same feeling.
The fact that it is counted by hand and written in pencil does
*not*, I repeat, does *not* mean that there is no cheating going
on. I know for the fact that there might be.
The big difference between the penciled vote and the electronic
vote is that the second gives one the uneasy feeling that there
might have some "monkey business" going on, as opposed to the first
method which makes you feel secure.
You have probably seen magic, either live or on tv. Do you believe
that if one of those magicians ( known also as prestidigitator or
fast fingers) were counting votes in front of your nose, he/she
could not cheat to his/hers hart content and you would attest his/
hers honesty in the process? You would probably think you lost your
wallet on your way home too! :)
This is one example. Two people counting 35 votes can be fairly
honest, not foolproof. But counting 3500 votes is a different thing
altogether.
There is no implicit or explicit more accuracy when using pencil.
There is the very very dangerous sentiment that the process is
honest a priori.
That is a ridiculous argument! I'd much rather trust people than a
corporation any day. People are accountable - corporations aren't.
In a UK General Election, the real humans who count the ballot papers
only need to be able to count to 25. Ballots are counted into batches
of 25. The counting and batching is strictly controlled so that all
papers are stored face-up to avoid anybody being able to associate
the number on the reverse of the ballot paper with the vote on the
other side.
The candidates, their spouses, their election agents and other pre-
appointed adjudicators are present during the counting process.
Journalists are also allowed to be present, but they are not allowed
to make close-up photographs or video/film of the ballot papers just
in case the number of a ballot paper should be recorded.
Any candidate can call for a recount - and in most closely fought
elections it is not uncommon for the ballots to be counted three or
four times. If a candidate is still dissatisfied they can challenge
the decision of the returning officer via an election petition. In
1997 this happened in the UK when the Lib Dems beat the Tories in
Winchester by 2 votes. The Tory candidate insisted that 55 spoiled
ballot papers be counted in his favour and was declared the winner.
The result was challenged and the court ruled in favour of the Tory
but called a by-election so that the voters could reconsider the
issue. They did - the Lib Dem candidate won by 21,556 votes second
time around...
This system isn't broken. It doesn't need fixing (not with technology
anyhow).
For some reason, the US* is driven to commercialise at *every*
opportunity.
The simple process of casting and counting a vote must be turned
into some
kind of profit angle for some corporation. Nobody is happy with it
until
some kind of technology is incorporated.
I don't understand this need to use machines to achieve something
that you
are better off using ordinary people to do.
I beg to disagree, if you are elderly person, the possibility of
voting via internet makes your life simpler doesn't it?
Also, if you can come up with a better way to vote electronically
what do you think is going to happen with the penciled vote?
That is such a bogus argument. Old people are much more likely to
want to go to their local polling station than want to exercise their
vote via the internet. Old people, the unemployed, prisoners and
manual labourers are easy to get votes from - they are very likely to
be where you expect them to be come polling day. Trouble is, they
tend to vote for the wrong people. Technical solutions are needed to
get the votes of the movers and shakers who are busy jetting around
the country or the world and unable or unwilling to get back home to
cast their vote.
Increasing the technology means concentrating the power away from
ordinary people counting bits of paper to whomever owns the
technology - it's a really bad idea.
In the UK we have a problem - every year fewer and fewer people vote.
The primary reason is that voting doesn't actually bring the kind of
changes that they'd like - so why bother? The State wants to make it
look like we're all fully involved and is therefore looking for ways
to increase the number of voters. They're toying with the idea of
letting us vote by phone, digital TV, National Lottery terminals
whatever. They are also considering making voting compulsory - like
they do in Australia.
Technology is being sought to solve an *apparent* problem and also
provides an opportunity for businesses to take more money from our
pockets - a "win win" situation for our betters. But there is *no*
benefit whatsoever for ordinary voters because the risks are simply
too great.
The *real* problem lies elsewhere - but some people would lose both
power, position and cash if the public were given some *real*
democratic choices. Never trust those who seek power - they'll lie
and cheat to maintain their positions as this BBC Radio 4 show
demonstrates:
<http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/aod/news.shtml?radio4/fileon4>
Giving them the power to bugger about with postal voting has already
proved to be disastrous. E-voting will give us a system that is as
transparent and democratic as the one used in the Eurovision Song
Contest...
[I'm definitely going back to scripting now as this thread has used
up my OT allowance for this month]
--
Martin Orpen
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Applescript-users mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden
| References: | |
| | >Re: Vote! (From: Martin Orpen <email@hidden>) |
| | >Re: Vote! (From: deivy petrescu <email@hidden>) |