
Article 13 gets legalized because Sweden pushed the wrong voting button - endymi0n
https://boingboing.net/2019/03/26/jfc-fml-jfc.html
======
self_awareness
I can't believe that people who have problems with operating a 3-button remote
decide how the whole internet should work.

Same stories with polish voters; mistake during voting. They have only one
job: push the right button.

Easiest explanation for this is that some people took money for the vote, they
did push the button they've wanted to, and they just told the public it was a
mistake. Because I can't imagine how it should be hard to confuse YES with NO.

\- Do you want ice cream? No. Sorry I meant yes!

\- Do you want to go see the movie? Yes. Sorry I've made a mistake, I meant to
say no.

Such stories suggest we're dealing with unstable individuals.

\- Do you want half of the world to act accordingly to our new set of rules?
Yes. Sorry, no. I meant yes! No sorry, what I wanted to say is NO. Sorry it
was a mistake!

The people that made a mistake are unstable and should be treated as unstable.

~~~
dagw
_The people that made a mistake are unstable and should be treated as
unstable._

It's not like there is only one thing to vote on on a given day. There are
often dozens of votes covering a huge spectrum of issues often with very
obtuse names and wording. So many people bring 'cheat sheets' so that they can
remember what they're planning on voting on each issue. The problem in this
case was that the order that issues where being voted on changed at the last
minute and not everybody got the news and updated their notes. So it wasn't
that they pressed the YES when they meant to press NO, its that they thought
they where answering YES to question 36 when they where infact answering YES
to question 37.

~~~
self_awareness
Why should I accept the excuse that MEPs are using bad cheat sheets? I've
heard excuses like this in my 1-st grade in elementary school. Why did you not
do your homework? I did, but the dog ate it.

MEPs that voted wrong are not fit to vote.

If they can't figure out and insure themselves against a rogue action like
changing vote order in the last minute, I don't think they belong to EP, since
they're too easy to manipulate.

I mean, the decisions they're making affect everyone in EU, and more. I can't
imagine how one shouldn't take a vote like this dead serious.

~~~
phiresky
You should watch this video about how bad the voting procedures actually are:
[https://youtu.be/lzigiPUXNzI](https://youtu.be/lzigiPUXNzI)

~~~
djsumdog
That's absolutely insane.

------
bambax
The title is misleading. The directive was approved by a large majority of 348
in favor, 274 against (spread of 74 votes).

Before that, there was a vote about whether to vote on individual amendments;
that vote (about voting on amendments) is the one discussed in the OP and was
indeed only defeated by 5 votes.

One individual amendment offered to delete article 13. It's possible that if
that amendment had come to a vote it would have succeeded, but it's not
certain -- and given the majority the directive enjoyed, it's quite unlikely.

This directive is still an absolute catastrophe, the effects of which will be
felt for a very long time. But articles like these don't quite help the fight.

~~~
chriswwweb
Yes, you right, this article is trying to mislead the reader in several
sentences, but the title here on hacker news is actually totally wrong, I
would categorize it as "fake news", first the wording "got legalized" is
weird, but most importantly the part "Article 13 gets legalized because Sweden
pushed the wrong button" is just wrong as there were two votes, sweden did a
mistake while voting for the second vote, which was about "if amendments
should get discussed"

I'm totally against so called article 13, I think it will be super bad for
European startups, they will suffer the most, but trying to spread fake news
just makes it worse because people you try to explain this don't take you
serious anymore

we need a report fake news button on hacker news

~~~
endymi0n
OP here, while we're at it, there should be a possibility to retract an
article after posting. I've fact checked this and it looks like you're right,
however I have no possibility to kill the article at the current moment.

------
hanoz
This is why you need some redundancy built into the voting mechanism,
otherwise you're always going to get such mistakes.

In the British Parliament you have to physically walk into a separate Aye or
No lobby to register your vote. Some might think this an anachronism, but you
don't tend to mill around in a crowded room with a load of people you disagree
with without realising.

~~~
sambeau
It's nearly happened:

    
    
      A minister inadvertently found himself in the wrong lobby in a Commons
      vote after a mix-up with a glass of water.
    
      Lib Dem MP Andrew Stunell was filling up a glass from a washroom inside
      one of the Commons lobbies where MPs cast their votes, when the doors
      closed.
    

[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-
politics-16746389](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16746389)

~~~
Reason077
Well, the Lib Dems have always struggled with which side of the House they're
on, so in this particular case it's not that surprising!

------
ngold
Some MEPs are now saying they accidentally voted the wrong way because the
voting order was changed and they were confused: Enough MEPs Say They
Mistakenly Voted For Articles 11 & 13 That The Vote Should Have Flipped; EU
Parliament Says Too Bad

13 of them registered a correction to their vote on amendments, with 10 of
those intending to vote for amendments. However, the corrections aren't used
to affect the outcome.

Edit: checking Techdirt's math:

Official vote: 312 for, 317 against, 24 abstained

MEPs that registered a voting correction (blank for abstain):

Name Voted Intended Gerolf Annemans for Johannes Cornelis van Baalen against
for Dita Charanzová for Martina Dlabajová for Antanas Guoga against for Eva
Joly for Jo Leinen ? for Peter Lundgren against for Michèle Rivasi for
Kristina Winberg against for Marek Plura for against Marita Ulvskog for
against Daniel Buda against After corrections: 320 for, 314 against, 20
abstained

So the vote would have had the opposite result if the corrected votes were
used.

~~~
self_awareness
Here's an article that covers this info:

[https://gizmodo.com/report-european-parliament-screwed-up-
th...](https://gizmodo.com/report-european-parliament-screwed-up-their-chance-
to-1833595723)

Although I'm not sure if I'm not against the law here, linking a copyrighted
material like a criminal

~~~
dingaling
You didn't include any of the copyrighted article.

You summarised the contents in your own words.

You hyperlinked to the article just like the WWW is meant to work.

Now wasn't that easy, remaining compliant with Article 11? So what's all the
fuss about?

The fuss arises from news aggregators who hate outbound links because they
take eyeballs away from their own site of scraped content.

~~~
self_awareness
Actually the link itself includes a part of the article, and it's possible to
tell what's the content of the article by looking at the link itself.

------
blastbeat
My first thought reading the headline was 'great, yet another "The Onion"
article'.

Anyway, it seems that some German delegates pushed the wrong button too:

[https://twitter.com/woelken/status/1110657088177487877](https://twitter.com/woelken/status/1110657088177487877)

Evil to him who evil thinks.

~~~
chriswwweb
Haha same here, I also thought it was an "The Onion" article

------
piokoch
So, from what I read, it seems that rather large number of MPs pushed the
wrong button.

I guess that more and more MPs would confess that "wrong button" was pressed
since European Parliament election is just around the corner (end of May).
Although voters memory is rather short, MPs are afraid that it might actually
persist for next 2 months.

~~~
chopin
I am definitely going to vote by which button was pushed, not by which button
was intended to push. A person who can't push the right button has no business
being member of the EP.

------
gardaani
According to Finland's national public broadcasting company, one Finnish MEP
also pushed the wrong button.

[https://yle.fi/uutiset/3-10707635](https://yle.fi/uutiset/3-10707635):
"However, Pietikäinen later said she voted wrong accidentally. Her intention
was to support the directive."

"Pietikäinen tosin kertoi myöhemmin äänestäneensä vahingossa väärin. Hänen
tarkoituksensa oli ollut kannattaa esitystä."

It seems that it is very easy to press wrong buttons.

~~~
olodus
The Swedish reps who pushed wrong said there were some changes last minute to
the agenda, confusing them and in effect probably caused the wrong button
press. Though I haven't been able to find for certain if this was the case.

I am glad most Swedish reps voted against but will definitely use my vote next
election to try and remove the ones that voted for (yes there were some that
voted for and not by mistake) and people incompetent enough to not know what
button to press when it comes down to it.

------
x38iq84n
> they can have the record amended to show what their true intention was, but
> the vote is binding.

Amazing rules, what a club to be in!

~~~
ElBarto
I don't think any parliament will allow a new vote because a member claims
(s)he made a mistake. That would create too many problems.

~~~
predakanga
I'm sure there are technicalities to it, but the Australian parliament allowed
a new vote just this year.[0]

In short, the governing party voted in favour of a motion that "It's okay to
be white". The vote failed to pass, but the next day (amid condemnation) it
was claimed that the vote was due to an administrative error. A new vote was
held and the motion was defeated again, unanimously.

I say there may be technicalities as apparently the vote was a
"recommittal"[1], but on the face of it the parliament allowed a new vote
because the members claimed to have made a mistake.

[0]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It%27s_OK_to_be_white#Australi...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It%27s_OK_to_be_white#Australian_parliament_motion)

[1]:
[https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practi...](https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practice_n_procedures/Senate_Briefs/Brief08#detailed)

~~~
A2017U1
4chan really has a lot answer for when something that ridiculous gets voted
upon in Parliament.

------
yason
It can be tricky with yes and no logic and how the issues are presented. I've
read several proposals that were voted in my local city council, and without
having excellent reading skills into the council jargon it would be really
easy to vote wrong. To further negate the relations, there might be a vote for
an opposing proposal, so if you want to support the original you vote no. I
usually understand what I read relatively easily, including articles on
complex algorithms, but had I had a seat in the city council these would've
stunned me several times.

For things with big impact like state parliament and EU votes there should be
a clear announcement before the vote to clarify which "side" the voting works
out to be.

------
krzys
People having problems with choosing correct button are responsible for
setting law about internet for millions. Just great.

~~~
chriswwweb
No, the article title here on hacker news is "fake news"! there were several
votes, the main vote about the law itself would have passed anyway, the "yes"
won with a significant margin, even if sweden would have voted differently ...
sweden just did a mistake when voting about the questions if amendments should
be discussed

------
myrryr
It would be a good way to vote the direction YOU wanted, and try to avoid the
repercussions of it.

Who can tell why they pressed that button?

~~~
timrichard
And such a coincidence that we're made aware of this "PEBKAC happens" when the
law is a controversial one.

------
endymi0n
> The title is misleading. The directive was approved by a large majority of
> 348 in favor, 274 against (spread of 74 votes). Before that, there was a
> vote about whether to vote on individual amendments; that vote (about voting
> on amendments) is the one discussed in the OP and was indeed only defeated
> by 5 votes.

OP here, you're right about that after doing some fact checking. I just
retracted the article by hiding. My bad.

------
misja
Too bad that some of our representatives seem to lack the mental capabilities
to handle the 3-button voting system.

On the other hand, who says that the reverse hasn't happened as well? I could
imagine that there also were some 'yes' voters who accidentally pressed the
wrong button.

~~~
_ink_
Indeed that is the case. I read that 13 people wanted to vote 'yes' but
pressed 'no' and 2 people wanted to vote 'no' but pressed 'yes'. So it does
not even out.

------
spectaclepiece
This summarizes the utter incompetence on both sides of the political spectrum
in Sweden. Not a proud day to be a Swede.

------
mojomark
So, now, if someone gets murdered in the city square (public domain), are city
officials charged with murder?

------
VvR-Ox
Another decision against humanity - nice!

This happens when everyone just exists to gain more money and power.

------
i4t
You had ONE JOB.

------
xpuente
"wrong"

------
alexandernst
You had one job...

~~~
alexandernst
I'd like to know why this is being downvoted.

~~~
gus_massa
One of the unofficial rules of HN is:

* No oneliners. Specialy memelike oneliners.

For example, if someone says "moon" and you reply "That's no moon...it's a
space station." you will get downvoted.

One clear symptom is that someone else wrote the same comment (with allcaps,
that breaks another rule). I'm not sure why that comment was _not_ downvoted.
(Note: I didn't downvote your comments or the comment of the other user.)

You can write oneliners in special occasions, but it's much safer to write a
longer comment and give more details.

Another rule is:

* Don't complain about downvotes.

Luckily, your second comment didn't get downvote.

