+ + + 3 BRANDNEW NewsTickers for your Website! + + + easy configurable in less than 1 Minute + + + GET'EM NOW! + + +

   Home | Join | Submit News | MyShortNews | HighScores | FAQ'S | Forums 0 Users Online   
                 02/24/2018 02:45 PM  
  ShortNews Search
search all Channels
RSS feeds
  ShortNews User Poll
Are you excited about the holiday season?
  Latest Events
  7.004 Visits   1 Assessments  Show users who Rated this:
Quality:Very Good
Back to Overview  
04/25/2009 04:59 PM ID: 78409 Permalink   

Ireland Does Away With Electronic Voting System


Ireland votes again on paper. This was decided the government because the e-voting-system is too expensive. Ireland already paid $67 million for the system and it costs even more to keep going with it. The country is not that financially strong at present.

Ireland's environment minister John Gormely claimed the financial crisis as prime reason, for the country has been shaken up financially by the financial crisis in a similar way to Iceland.

Ohio and Florida also had problems with the system. But the financial reason was not the only reason, it is said, that e-voting is a quite badly managed and expensive IT-project.

    WebReporter: ingwer Show Calling Card      
ASSESS this news: BLOCK this news. Reason:
  When I voted  
I used a paper hybrid. I voted on paper and feed into an electronic voting machine. It was to have a paper trail, if the machine alarm went off, you had to check you ballet for errors, I forget what it did or did not do when everything was good, I got the all clear. It was fast compared to last time when it was all electronic.
  by: thedrewman   04/25/2009 05:47 PM     
  They did the right thing  
for the wrong reason, e-voting machine are way too easily hacked,that should have been their reason number 1,and after that the fact that they were too expensive.
  by: Korzen   04/25/2009 06:57 PM     
  my god what about the trees!  
  by: zatonado001     04/26/2009 03:10 AM     
ever store anything that you need 100% completely safe on only a computer. I know a lot of governments (some more than others) probably see the whole voting thing as just a formality, but it would be nice if they at least pretended to care.
  by: velger   04/26/2009 04:35 AM     
The trouble with evoting is it is a) Expensive and b) Unverifiable

The Irish solved this problem with a pencil and paper. It is inexpensive with a built-in paper trial. Europe can learn something from their example.
  by: Big Bird     04/26/2009 05:06 AM     
They're just as easy to verify as paper voting so that's not even a concern.

The biggest problems right now are the same ones any new project has expense, application, and development. So when matured it will be just as useful as older methods. The problem is that it has to be used to be matured and people are told to be afraid of it.

Personally paper or electronic we should be given a new choice to allow everyone to access our votes if we allow it.
  by: splicer   04/26/2009 08:24 AM     
Should NEVER have been used. It cost the United States 8 years of hell with Bush as our President. Well, that and Republican lobbyists who bought the Presidency by getting rid of minority votes, or by placing faulty machines in areas of the city with large minorities (oxymoron? lol)

  by: NicPre     04/26/2009 07:47 PM     
  by: captainJane     04/26/2009 11:59 PM     
  Machines can be hacked  
and votes misscounted. Both systems have their failures.

However if we are too achieve a true direct democrazy without the need of representives speaking on our behalf..
an electronic voting system is nessessary.

I love democrazy. But we can no longer elect selfish individuals under the pretense that they reflect our morals ideals and interests.

But we live in a representative democrazy, and that is where we have failed. I would like to vote on each and every issue big or small, federal or state.

Why, if we have the means to have our individual voices heard, why must we still elect people to represent us?

How many of you would rather be able to vote and sign in legislation than to let some elected official, probably still collecting payoffs, and still paying them from his last compaign to vote on your behalf?

Not me.

I want to vote on the issue, not who I think agrees with me most, to go on to vote, and whom may vote differently on a seperate issue after I already voted her to her office.

There is my real issue with todays democracy. We havev local campaigns for our members of parliment, we elect them- for arguments sake lets say they're all about increasing Unemployment, which i may agree with, and so i vote her, then the issue of abortion comes up, and I am pro-choice, she'd anti-abortion so i kno how she'll vote.

Having to choose between 5 different parties to speak my voice is not a legitiment governing practice when there are too vast and too diverse a population to represent with only a mere 5 choices.
  by: thedeeder   04/27/2009 07:39 PM     
Copyright ©2018 ShortNews GmbH & Co. KG, Contact: