Discussion in 'Speaker's Corner' started by BowdonUK, Jun 2, 2019.
That's not a good enough reason to stick to archaic practices
I'm a bit authoritarian.
I'd have everything under people's NI in centralised databases.
If only we had those ID cards that the previous Labour government were going to bring in… the ones scrapped by Theresa May.
Yet there are election ID trials imposed by her party, strange huh.
Technology could support practices, but it would need [as impartial as you can manage] oversight and regulation by people to check for tampering etc.
There must be a way to create a system of digital voting that is as secure, a set of physical constraints must exist for it to be infallible or so difficult it's not worth the time over media manipulation.
Even the current system isn't infallible.
Right now its,
Go to Station
Put Paper into sealed box
Move box to count
Count and Record
The bolded would be no different, it's a question of providing an independent device that logs a decision on a sealed memory platform, any hint of tampering should immediately terminate the Station voting ability/Count and nullify the result.
The issue i guess is in who supplies the system, the literal only point of issue in my eyes. Mind you i dont really see an issue with paper voting.
finger print ID terminals
undemocratic for amputees
There are plenty of biometric security solutions that could be used in some form of two-factor authentication process:
Finger print recognition
The issue is that none of them are infallible and also, many people would be sceptical about giving out that kind of information to be held by the government, even if it was encrypted.
It's not really that one can't be created, it's that it's just no worth it, the current system has a very low level of fraud mainly because of the archaic nature of it.
To influence the result to any noticeable degree requires a great deal of effort and is very likely to be discovered because of the amount of people who would need to be involved, even in the example @BowdonUK gave of...
Likely wouldn't have effected the result if it wasn't spotted and that it was spotted is an example of the system working, yes it's not perfect but not many systems are, it's much easier to manipulate the populace through propaganda and misinformation, as shown in the post @VincentHanna made about what's being shared on facebook
An all digital system is far more open to abuse because of the single point of failure issue and less people involved who would be capable of spotting any underhand going on's, much easier to just sow disinformation and lies in newspapers and on social media.
My brother used to work in Estonia and they have pretty much everything tied in to their ID card. Think it lets you change your vote as many times as you wish up until the deadline.
I've been an enumerator at every count since 2011, and literally nothing you have said here could happen the way you describe it. First, the number of votes that are meant to be in each box or stack is known before the count begins. If a count team returns a different number then it is rejected and the team has to count it again. So there's no point even trying to hide a stack of votes, particularly during the second phase. Second, counters typically operate in teams of four and they check each other's work. Nobody could do this without someone on their team spotting them. Third, an observer wouldn't "call over" an official because the team leader is right there. And he wouldn't even ask the enumerator why the votes were under the table, he'd just get them back on the table and count them.
Just because its not happened to you doesn't mean it hasn't happened. The only part I can't 100% recall was if it was a GE election or a local council. I'm thinking local council as the GE one had a lot tighter security.
I know that when a candidate was standing they was allowed to take in a set number of observers, I was one of them. I don't know about teams or that kinda thing, it sounds like you have been a counter of the votes? I'm just saying what happened. It was brought to my attention that she was putting the votes for the party I was with in 2 piles and then kept pushing the 2nd pile away. So I was watching from a distance and then when she put them under the table I challenged her. She had said the votes weren't clearly marked, even though it was only votes for 1 party. That's when I asked someone else what was going on.
I'm not an expert on the counting process (it sounds like you have more knowledge of what should happen). I'm just recalling the incident that I saw. I'd been an observer for a few elections, including 1 general election that had a lot more security around.
It may "archaic" but it's a lot harder to interfere with and a lot more secure than say the wonderful US system which relies on systems that are known to have major security flaws (and have been demonstrated to be able to be intered with in seconds without a trace) or their older system which made it hard to make out who people voted for if you didn't work the machine just right, or if the machine was poorly maintained...
Obviously, which is how I know you've never actually been an observer. You literally cannot be an observer and not know about count teams, because your whole job is to stand at a table and watch one. To say you've done it multiple times including at a General Election is just blatantly false - that, or you're the most incompetent observer in history. Either way, your little "and then everyone stood up and clapped" story didn't happen.
I'm not sure if we're using the same term to describe different things. But I was asked, along with 10 other people, to be part of the candidates team. i was given a name badge and only people who had been authorized could go in to the counting room.
The general election count I was at was the 2005 Rochdale constituency when Labour's Lorna Fitzsimons lost her seat to the Lib Dem Paul Rowen.
I don't know where you've got the 'and then everyone stood up and clapped' bit from.
If you don't believe me then thats your issue. You seem to have some motive for attacking my experience instead of tryng to understand it. It was a long time ago so I don't remember all the correct terms. All I know is that a candidate was standing in one of the wards and was told by the candidate agent that upto 10 people can come along with each candidate to observe the counting. I was one of the 10. This happened 2 or 3 times at Rochdale town hall.
I'm "attacking your experience" because it doesn't coincide with reality and because it is setting up an attack narrative on democracy. As someone who participates in the administration of that democracy, I find it personally insulting.
Your story reminds me of when Scottish nationalists posted about how they'd seen whole piles of Yes votes piled on the No table at the count for the Independence referendum. It turned out that the piles were of unsorted votes and the picture had been taken before the second phase of the count began, but that didn't stop the spittle-flecked ranting about how the true result was being stolen from Scotland with the collusion of everybody. You didn't say which party you observed for, but given your remark about how the three major parties would ignore the hiding of minority party votes I would guess it was UKIP? The Brexiteers fear losing a second referendum or contesting a GE that sees the BXP get no power, and they want their own Dolchstosslegende to counter that.
You make a good point, and it's one brought in to stark contrast when the screams about how "You must respect democracy" are seen next to the utter disrespect given to democracy prior to the ref when many Brexiteers could be seen giving assurances, that, "It doesn't matter how you vote. They won't let Leave win."... "If they give you a pencil at the polling station, that's because they're going to rub out your cross".
They had zero faith in the integrity of UK democracy when they were manipulated to in order to encourage them to protest-vote.
Then, after their protest votes won them their undeliverable fantasy, they refuse to acknowledge the proven interference.
With many Brexiteers, it seems, principles are a fluid matter, secondary to getting whatever it is they've been made to believe they want.
mmm..... something odd is going on down there. Something I'm definitely keeping an eye on
Ha, what a load of twaddle that entire article is.
Separate names with a comma.