Apparently, the new elections website cost R3mil and it’s a mess
I can’t believe it – The new elections website apparently cost R3,000,000.00 and it’s horrible!
“In November last year IEC chief information officer, Libisi Maphanga, said that the organisation planned to spend R3 million to fix the website which was inaccessible to computer users not using Microsoft Windows or Internet Explorer.
Maphanga said that the organisation, which oversees elections in the country, would spend R3 million to make its website accessible to all Internet users.
Today the IEC website is available to all users and the error message that previously infuriated users has been removed.” ~ mybb
Looking a little further, if you grab the meta name, you’ll see who designed and “developed” the website. I’m not going to publish his details here though, so you’ll need to view the source. Here’s another website of his.. southafrica2010.co.za – once again, it’s awful.
Argh, this frustrates me! Big up to TRR for pointing this out!
Update – 20.01.09
After reading through all the comments, it boils down to the fact that we would like to know what the website cost. The amount of R3mil has been said to be incorrect.
I ask that people please use this forum to leave constructive comments and not comments aimed at degrading anyone.
They also need an SEO consultant – Check this
Thank You.
This is what the election site should look like..
See you soon.
Jan 19th, 2009 at 3:37 pm
if this site cost more than R60k to do (cost) i would be surprised.
sure there might be more features/security but I cannot see this site costing R3million freaking rand?!?
And if you look @ the ‘developers’ other sites you will see that this is there general level of design and it is SHOCKING!
when u check ur ID number if you are registered the crappy css from the home page disappears and you are left with a basic box?
sigh.
Jan 19th, 2009 at 3:49 pm
At least it looks equally bad in IE and FF. That’s something I suppose. I was expecting it might look “good” in IE and worse in other browsers.
Jan 19th, 2009 at 4:08 pm
“Microsoft OLE DB Provider for ODBC Drivers error ‘80040e07′
[Microsoft][ODBC SQL Server Driver][SQL Server]The conversion of a char data type to a datetime data type resulted in an out-of-range datetime value.
/Default.asp, line 125″
Nuff said
Jan 19th, 2009 at 4:42 pm
Pathetic. I know 6th-graders that do better designs. I’m guessing that the R3m wasn’t related to the site at all – it’s probably some sort of payoff for the ‘developer’, thanks to some connections in the government, and he probably had someone else do the site at a 1000th of the cost.
That’s how our elected officials do business.
~ Wogan
Jan 19th, 2009 at 4:52 pm
Here’s another interesting link, check the “developers” credentials:
http://www.nwpg.gov.za/ddlg&h/cont/about/Credit.asp
Jan 19th, 2009 at 4:52 pm
Seriously if the guys who designed this southafrica2010.co.za site was given the job to design The IEC’s webthen something is wrong with the world.
Seriously Chris did this guy deign both sites because the sa2010 site is probably the worst website design I’ve ever seen!
My eyes are still hurting!
Edit: I Just checked out their main site PDCA.co.za and it’s just as bad. None of the links even work.
Jan 19th, 2009 at 4:55 pm
yep ash its the same guy/team that did those lovely two sites. makes you wonder who authorized R3mill for those designs/looks
Jan 19th, 2009 at 5:05 pm
aaaah!!! the soccer site is just scary!!!!
Did he change the skin or style sheet for the R3m, last time I checked it had the same menu items, just looked abit better .
Jan 19th, 2009 at 5:06 pm
Could it be that this smacks of nepotism? I mean, surely the person we’re talking about cannot get paid R3 million while working for government? How the heck does this work?!
Jan 19th, 2009 at 5:09 pm
Not sure what is more amusing. Abusing what usually gets into an ‘author’ meta tag on the IEC:
or the fact that he lists that on the credits page on the other website. Someone please send him on a real webdesign course with Dave Shea and the gang.
Jan 19th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
Nice you stripped the meta tags out in the comment ;)
Jan 19th, 2009 at 5:12 pm
There has to be a way better way of laying http://www.elections.org.za/Contact.asp out.
Jan 19th, 2009 at 5:14 pm
Both sites look and function like absolute garbage! I gave up trying to check if I’m registered – I couldn’t get past the captcha, which seems to be broken. Oh, wait… I’ve just tried again and it worked. What was the problem before? Who knows, because it didn’t tell me anything!
Did one person do this site? Looks like it, so… What are his credentials? Was the site properly tested? (I also got the SQL error, which went away after a few reloads.) Why wasn’t an experienced company contracted to do it?
Shocking. I hope SouthAfrica2010.co.za is not being marketed, especially to overseas people – it’s thoroughly embarrassing.
Jan 19th, 2009 at 5:21 pm
I say its all about KICKBACKS. Someone is scoring big time. We give you the site, charge 3mil and we get 50%.
Freekn corrupt muth…. can I swear here Chris?
Jan 19th, 2009 at 5:22 pm
There is no chance in heaven that the ‘developer’ of this site got 3mill. Never never never.
They probably got 10k and the rest went into rear pocket.
All I can do is laugh with absolute frustration at this this pathetic effort called a website.
Infact… whatever.
Chris, please SEO the crap out of this post. So that when peeps search they read this post first. Please.
Jan 19th, 2009 at 5:27 pm
hold on!
isnt that the same dude that did the weatherSA site?
3 million?
chris…we in the wrong business.
Jan 19th, 2009 at 5:31 pm
I am stunned by this :/ it is shocking that this passed QA (if they even had any), and made its way into the public domain.
Wow.
Jan 19th, 2009 at 5:31 pm
R3 Million For this? You’ve got to be kidding… All I can say is… “Welcome to Africa”
This is without a doubt one of THE WORST designs I have EVER seen!
Jan 19th, 2009 at 5:38 pm
OMFS moar phail pl0x!
’scuse the 1337 speak, but if this cost more than R10k, then something is seriously wrong
Jan 19th, 2009 at 5:39 pm
It’s this corrupt goverment of ours. All the gov cronies organise their cousins to win all the outsource tenders wether they are qualified or not. This is a prime example. R3 million just to make it cross browser compatible? What a joke.
Jan 19th, 2009 at 6:28 pm
sigh… that’s it, just sigh…
breaks my heart :`(
Jan 19th, 2009 at 6:55 pm
To all the respondents above, I appreciate you concerns, if that was a fact and true I would equally be horrified, unfortunately concerns are based on incorrect information and I am disappointed that before expressing your anger and alleging corruption, you did not have the decency of establishing the correctness of the information you are responding to.
For your information the cross-browser compatible version of the IEC website that was published recently is a product of a sub-project whose deliverable was to make the current website cross-browser compatible, besides compatibility nothing more has changed, the look and content remains as it has been before. Most importantly it cost way below 10% of the figure that most of you are complaining about.
The figure of R3 million that has been bandied around relates to the total project of revamping the website, based on a complete redesign and redevelopment of the website, streamlining and standardising presentation and content management, though the use of modern content management tools and systems.
I am open would welcome open and honest criticism that is based correct facts, at time we learn and grow from factual and honest criticism. I can assure everybody that there is no corruption involved, the IEC is proud of its open, fair and transparent procurement processes.
The project has nothing to do with government and the IEC can proudly say we are amongst a few public sector institutions that implemented one of best systems and processes in order to minimize the risk of corruption by implementing the most open and transparent procurement processes ever seen in both the public and private sector.
Jan 19th, 2009 at 7:10 pm
Hi Libisi Maphanga,
Thank you for coming in and sharing some information with us. As I’m sure you’re aware, a huge number of us are web designers and developers, so we naturally jump onto this like this. The price mentioned was taken from another source, and now I understand that it involved an entire project.
Let’s see what everyone else feels about this – We’re just concerned about the level of work considering the huge number of amazingly talented web agencies we have, here in Cape Town alone.
Once again, thank you for your comment!
Jan 19th, 2009 at 7:28 pm
Libisi I have to be honest – I have no other state I’m afraid – the design is truly hideous. Cross browser functionality aside, you could have done better installing an open source CMS system, implementing a very basic secured (SSL) encryption for those pages which might have required it and what’s more you’d have done this for FREE. You mentioned that a part of your streamlining process was to find a CMS and set of tools to manage the site effectively. Hell I could have tapped out an email and saved you the ten minutes it took to design the blue-monstrosity and I could at least have pocketed some of that “hard earned” loot of yours.
I shall assume that the subsequent iterations of the IEC’s website will look incredible and won’t have standard lists and some cut up pixelated images masquerading as a web page..
Jan 19th, 2009 at 7:32 pm
Okay okay…..If its not done then remove it please and I seriously hope they not gonna use the same dude to do the rest of the work on this site.I like this guys credentials and very unique design style….LMfreakinAO
Jan 19th, 2009 at 7:33 pm
Libisi Maphanga,
Thank you for responding to our barrage of assumptions and clearing up the pricing issues. I apologize for my earlier comments.
However, I hope that the final product of the IEC site is an unbelievably huge improvement of what is online at the moment.
Cross browser compatibility / usability aside this design is shocking by ANY modern standards. The HTML used to create the site linked here is also out of date and in my opinion needs to be addressed. It is just unprofessional.
My suggestion is to consult one of the many top web design/development companies in the country to see what is wrong and how it can be fixed.
Jan 19th, 2009 at 7:33 pm
Unfortunately it’s very hard from the outside to put an estimate on how much a development cost. There could be a lot more back-end stuff going on than what we know of.. there also could have been a lot of changes of requirements once the project got started.. If the client changes the goal posts every few yards it can easily make the costs skyrocket.
I have no inside information on whether their costs are valid or not, all I’m saying is that I have seen many seemingly “simple” deployments get very expensive because the client keeps changing the requirements.
But, on the surface, you are right in your conclusions that what we are presented with does appear to be amateuristic given their stated expenses!
Jan 19th, 2009 at 7:43 pm
Any website that costs anywhere near R3 million should be as close to flawless as can be. I will be waiting on this masterpiece with bated breath
Jan 19th, 2009 at 7:45 pm
Lol,
Nothing better than a not fully functional website. Really great.
Jan 19th, 2009 at 7:51 pm
I would like to ask who is paying for the changes made to the site? And if we the tax payers are? Surely we as the tax payers have the right to know what the costs were?
Jan 19th, 2009 at 8:47 pm
I agree Shaun, after all, the IEC is transparent as quoted:
“I can assure everybody that there is no corruption involved, the IEC is proud of its open, fair and transparent procurement processes.”
Jan 19th, 2009 at 9:03 pm
Well this post has just opened a can of worms! My next question would be how secure are our ID numbers in this database? Unfortunately I have no experience in this field. Then my other question would be how much did we fork out for the initial design? Sorry Chris I’m turning this post into a website debate like the debate on SABC that’s on at night.
Jan 19th, 2009 at 9:34 pm
WTF?!?!?!
Jan 19th, 2009 at 9:40 pm
I would like to see South African government web sites developed using the LAMP platform instead of any third party closed source platform.
I am dismayed to see them deploying a new project using outdated technology – they’re using classic ASP.
Furthermore articles published on the site do not possess seo friendly permanent links. The links I’m seeing as I hover over them are horrendous and completely unmemorable.
Jan 19th, 2009 at 10:08 pm
Wow, finally took the time to read this, and look at the websites, my god…. I wonder if I can do better, and being a 2nd year IT student, I reckon I can, but those sites, were horrible, the soccer one, was so bad, that I couldn’t believe it.
Spinning soccer balls… really?
Jan 20th, 2009 at 12:54 am
Hmm… exactly wtf is re-designed, streamlined and modern about your work here Maphanga? show me ONE thing that fits into those categories. You swindled your way into that contract and you know it.
Let this be a lesson to you and your like-minded chronies… don’t F*** with the internet, this our house, gtfo.
Jan 20th, 2009 at 12:55 am
well seeing as the IEC is so transparent I’d love to know the actual cost of this ‘portal’ to the taxpayer.
Sure 3mil was budgeted but what has it been spent on? Iv chatted to some friends who work in the banking industry and they say that the systems that appear to be running on this kind of system should not be THAT heavy on anything, so a budget cant be in the mil’s high.
rofl @ jean Barendse comment… yes spinning soccer balls. they are so leet this year. im surprised they dont have a watermark saying “gifgenerator.com”
Jan 20th, 2009 at 12:57 am
lol and btw i just ran the new ’site’ through the w3c validator:
139 Errors, 9 warning(s)
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.elections.org.za%2F&charset=(detect+automatically)&doctype=Inline&group=0
:-/
Jan 20th, 2009 at 9:23 am
Libisi Maphanga, where can we get a breakdown of the costs?
I think the IEC owes us that; we’re the ones who are paying for this website.
Jan 20th, 2009 at 10:01 am
“Most importantly it cost way below 10% of the figure that most of you are complaining about. ”
Even 10% of 3mil (300k) seems a bit much for that site.
Jan 20th, 2009 at 10:15 am
Don’t think of the cost as 3 million… Just think of it as only 6 cents for every 48 million people in South Africa…
Jan 20th, 2009 at 10:20 am
Its actually R16 / per person but anyway… Still point is 3 mill is extortionate…
Jan 20th, 2009 at 10:23 am
Libisi Maphanga: do you want to know why many of us think corruption or nepotism’s involved? Because we cannot fathom you hiring who you did because of any other reason – the site is that poor. The fact that there isn’t any of either means that you actually do not know what you are doing when it comes to this Website – that you don’t know how to go about choosing someone who is able to produce a good site. Not knowing is fine, but you should admit so and seek proper guidance.
Cross-browser compatibility is a means to an end, not a feature of a site. It is of little use if the site is barely usable. And why were there ever compatibility issues? How could you ever produce a site for use by the general public without support for Internet Explorer, which is the most common browser? To me this is more evidence of your lack of expert guidance.
Who is the author whose name is embedded in the site? Is he the original author or the person tasked with implementing cross-browser compatibility? If the latter, why is he taking ownership? If the former, his work is best described as sub-standard.
I understand that many of our comments do not apply to the latest changes, that actually we are criticising smething that has been like it is for a while. However, these criticisms are no less applicable because of that.
Let me sum it up for you: the site looks terrible and amateurish, and it functions horribly. All-in-all, it is a failure because only the most dedicated of people will use it – the rest of us will give up after a while because of all of the above.
Jan 20th, 2009 at 10:25 am
“the most dedicated of people will use it – the rest of us will give up after a while because of all of the above.”
perhaps thats the point, we know what Governments key deomgraphic is, dont we?
Jan 20th, 2009 at 10:53 am
MarQ, not sure I completely agree with that. Aside how crap it looks or how much it cost, I’d like to know WHY a government employee was involved in the first place. Surely this can’t be right seeing that the IEC are supposed to be INDEPENDENT? Libisi, care to clear that up for us?
Jan 20th, 2009 at 10:58 am
I retract what I said about Internet Explorer – I misread the MyBroadband article: the site did work in IE, it didn’t work in anything else. Still, the lack of testing in other browsers means that the testing procedure wasn’t properly designed or carried out. Anyone with Website design experience should know to test for cross-browser compatibility.
Jan 20th, 2009 at 10:59 am
@ Stii: afaik the govt still pays the IEC’s bills, so they would have someone in there showing their presence etc.
I mean the IEC are the ‘independent people’ who help the zim elections stay ‘fair’ and look how well that went.
/ontopic
I dont think Libisi is coming back …that comment was pasted on myadsl exactly the same…so i think they just canned a response out.
Jan 20th, 2009 at 11:02 am
@deems responded with a petition on mypetition – sign up
http://www.mypetition.co.za/index.php?page=sign_petition&petition_id=294
Jan 20th, 2009 at 11:03 am
After my response to Libisi, I received an email saying this..
“Noted
Thank you,
Libisi Maphanga
Chief Information Officer”
Based on that, I think Ruark might be correct, I don’t think we’ll get down to the bottom of this. However, I could pop Libisi an email asking for attention to this thread..
Jan 20th, 2009 at 11:08 am
Look that being stated Chris that she is the CIO of the IEC, she should be responsible for the public face of the organisation.
and she should be hunting down these things:
1)
a)what was the actual cost break down of the ’site’ part.
b)where did the rest of the millions go into? (and an actual response is needed there)
2)who approved this design and this developer? The person who approved this should be reprimanded/fired or at least have their eyesite tested and forced to goto a visual appreciation course.
Jan 20th, 2009 at 11:18 am
Ruark, no I can understand that, but that in itself is flawed then. Why the hell did they PAY him for doing something that is his job anyway? I’m not sure I’m painting this straight.
Government is footing IEC bills. Government gives the IEC 3 mil to fix up the website. IEC pays a government employee’s private business to fix it up. Makes sense? It just doesn’t sound right…
Jan 20th, 2009 at 11:25 am
@stii – it’s taught at varsity in a class called “how to get fat in lean times” and an adavanced module “how to screw the public and get away with it by saying the problem is too complex to understand”
Jan 20th, 2009 at 11:32 am
nah it defiantly doesn’t sound kosher.
either way as a taxpayer funded organisation, we want to see where this R3mil was spent. Because even with custom systems written etc…R3mil is a joke. esp for ‘cross browser compatibility’
Looking @ the wayback machine for the elections website: http://web.archive.bibalex.org/web/20060524100950/www.elections.org.za/ the site (quite broken soz) if you look @ the source code you can see that the current person’s name isnt in his meta name lovespot. Which means that this person was brought onboard to do this ‘cross browser’ thing.
I dont think its too much to ask for us to be told where our tax money is being spent?
Jan 20th, 2009 at 11:36 am
Ruark, I concur. Looking at that link though, its quite a big mess in FF…
Jan 20th, 2009 at 11:38 am
I wish to thank Steve for forwarding me to this issue.
I have forwarded this article to the Speaker of Parliament, Gwen Mahlangu-Nkabinde, asking to place this issue on the agenda of the next meeting of Parliament.
The DA believes that all monies spent with taxpayer revenue must we spent wisely and accounted for.
Helen Zille
Democratic Alliance Leader
leader@da.org.za
Jan 20th, 2009 at 11:42 am
You know, far as I’m concerned, the target market for that website is the average SA voter. The absolute lack of judgment that the IEC displayed in commissioning, designing, and signing off on this website is nothing other than an affront to the South African voter population.
Ultimately, it’s our right to vote, and it’s the obligation of the IEC to make it possible. The money spent on their platforms is financed out of our pockets, and first and foremost, we have a right to know how that money’s being spent – none of which I see here.
True, there was more to the R3m project than just the publicly accessible site. I’m willing to bet a lot of that was spent on an internal intranet, to facilitate voter registration/co-ordination come election day. I have no problem with that, either – imagine having to handle 20m+ records coming in from stations all over the country, quickly and securely.
I’m also willing to accept the fact that we’re dealing with voter records here – something that is highly confidential. You wouldn’t be able to grab just any web design company off the street. It would have to be a government connection with the appropriate clearances.
But seriously, to belittle the intelligence of the South African population, railing on about how the new site is “Cross Browser Compatible” while basic features like the CAPTCHA don’t work? This website was supposed to serve as a means for the IEC to support the fulfillment the basic democratic right of a SA citizen to vote, and for most, it’s failing miserably: http://href.co.za/18f
Bottom line: The IEC could have done a lot more on their public-facing site. Had they handled the project better, I’m sure they would have been safely able to contract out the design work to a private company. SA’s entering the world stage with 2010 next year, and you’d think that government would make it a priority that all organizations come across in a professional way. A 70s-reminiscent unstandarded mess of a site is not the way to go about that.
Jan 20th, 2009 at 11:42 am
@dre: I got a network error when I tried to send the petition to my friends and acquaintances:
Jan 20th, 2009 at 11:44 am
Helen for President! Oh I dearly hope you have no plans of retiring soon Helen. This country needs a leader like you more then ever.
Jan 20th, 2009 at 11:45 am
Dear Mrs Zille,
Thank you so much for taking time out of your busy schedule to come and talk to us, this is truly incredible.
We all look very forward to hearing further.
Keep doing what you do, you’re inspirational.
Warm Regards,
Christopher Mills
Jan 20th, 2009 at 11:51 am
Total fail.
So that’s the one designed in 1985 right?
Jan 20th, 2009 at 11:53 am
Everytime I am not satisfied with the theme of my site i’ll just go there and smile.
Jan 20th, 2009 at 11:53 am
@joy-mari eish – not sure what happened, mine worked. Suppose you need to fall back to the old way of doing things – sending email manually :-)
Jan 20th, 2009 at 11:55 am
I cant seem to get enough of this.
Was that designer constipated?
That is the mother of all ugly sites.
Jan 20th, 2009 at 11:58 am
@Wogan: “You know, far as I’m concerned, the target market for that website is the average SA voter.” This is part of the problem: the “average” person will not use this site because it is such a mess.
I tried at least half a dozen times to check whether I am registered (I know I am – I checked ages ago; I just wanted to test the facility), before giving up because it just didn’t work – there was no error or feedback of any kind.
I returned to the main site, only to get the SQL error mentioned above. I then waited a while and tried the whole process again. This time it worked. Can you imagine the average person doing this? Hence me saying that only the most dedicated of people will use the site.
Jan 20th, 2009 at 12:01 pm
Its pretty kewl to see some people actually giving a damn.
Think this ties in very well with our Telecommunications minister not knowing what DSL is. The poor girl, someone should help really them out…of parliament ;)
Jan 20th, 2009 at 12:05 pm
@MarQ: The “target market” is the market the site’s supposed to service, theoretically. Had it lived up to those expectations, then I’m sure the average person would use the site.
It’s only the most dedicated people that will try and try again, but ultimately, that’s not who the site should be targeting.
~ Wogan
Jan 20th, 2009 at 12:14 pm
I’m not sure there’s any actual evidence that R3m was spent on this — or on what exactly. That quote could mean anything. The first order of business is to find out what was actually spent before we all get on our high horses.
In true DA style, Helen Zille rushes in on a white steed to “raise the issue”. Can no-one see that as a the transparent politicician-speak that it is?
Jan 20th, 2009 at 12:16 pm
@Jarred – Agreed, at this point, I’d like to know what the total expense was on the website, it has been denied and therefore I would like a look at some figures.
Ps. Did you get my email?
Jan 20th, 2009 at 12:20 pm
Jarred, to some extent I agree with you about Helen Zille’s cavalier tactics. Taking the title “official opposition” utilizing that as a basis for all things political is a little circumspect. It was cool to see her climb on board this obvious waste of our tax payer’s money.
Picture this though, I come to cambrient, I walk through your door knowing I have 3mil to spend and ask you to put up a few temp sites to make do whilst we built the primary content portal. Would you really want to destroy your brand’s goodwill with sites which are so shite that ought to be framed on the wall as historic-anachronisms which we ought never let loose one the public again.
Something tells me we got f’d in the a by the powers that be, again.
Jan 20th, 2009 at 12:21 pm
@Wogan: I wholly agree!
Jan 20th, 2009 at 12:22 pm
Jarred… sigh… really? that’s your point? Have you failed to read the dozens of comments by industry professionals that have said 3M even 300K is far in excess of what is required.
I assume you’re simply being argumentative, anything else is madness :P
Jan 20th, 2009 at 12:26 pm
@Jarred: yes, I agree, we don’t know how the money was spent and exactly how much was spent. But this discussion is as much about a poor Website that fails to properly serve the public as it is about possibly mis-spent money.
Jan 20th, 2009 at 12:27 pm
So does anyone have proof that these people payed 3 mill for this?
If so, does anyone know who pays this? The taxpayers?
Jan 20th, 2009 at 12:29 pm
@LUCKYSOCKS I can assure you I am quite aware of would be required to make this site. A four year-old with severe brain damage, a copy of Frontpage, a bottle of tequila, three gerbils and a typewriter with a missing “S” key.
However, we need FACTS before we start hurtling around the usual boring insults against government. What was the actual spend? Is that quote from the IEC official representative as good as a signed cheque as evidence?
South Africans love nothing more than assaulting the government. And the IEC should be assaulted for putting up a site like this, I totally agree. But let’s not start making accusations about ludicrous sums of money until someone has established beyond a reasonable doubt what was spent.
Me, I think they gave the four year-old a box of smarties.
Jan 20th, 2009 at 12:31 pm
I agree, we need proof of the cost.
Jan 20th, 2009 at 12:33 pm
I reckon the design and coding of this site was outsourced to India or Bangladesh and was made as part of a grade 6 class project.
I don’t see any of the South African flair in it.
It’s a shame to our nation.
Jan 20th, 2009 at 12:35 pm
lol Jarred, fair point, well-made.
If there’s one thing we KNOW about Government is that if they budget 3M they’ll spend at LEAST 3M…
not sure if u’ve seen it but the lead on the IEC project has pictures of the corporate jet he wants to buy on his facebook profile…
There needs to be swift action to investigate before the IEC has time to make things magically disappear.
to quote a great man “if it smells funny, I’m not eating it” this stinks :P
Jan 20th, 2009 at 12:37 pm
@esvl – The IEC is funded totally on Government money, which is totally funded by the taxpaying public.
Although publicly funded and accountable to parliament, the Commission is independent of the government. Its immediate task is the impartial management of free and fair elections at all levels of government.
http://www.elections.org.za/Vision.asp
Jan 20th, 2009 at 12:37 pm
I used it yesterday with FF on Mac no prob…
Except for this damn stupid message that says “Your voting district HAS CHANGED SHAPE through the re-drawing of boundaries. Although your name is currently assigned to the original voting district in which you were registered and will remain so, you MAY have to re-register for your name to appear on the CORRECT SEGMENT of the voters’ roll. Please call the IEC toll free on 0800 11 8000 to confirm your correct voting district and station.”
I assume a lot of the R3-m went into the back end GIS, etc (although I honestly can’t imaging how complicated it could be to implement…and it should already exist for the IEC’s own use (surely?)). And then they fixed the non-IE browsers problem, but the voter registration lookup is not tied to the GIS that gives current voting districts (or the very simple “you were registerd _here_, now your district voting station is _here_ so your registration is automatically updated”).
But from the lookup page you can click through to the correct updated district map. So they do have the right info.
SO WHAT IS THE POINT OF THE SYSTEM IF IT DOES NOT GIVE YOU CURRENT AND USEFUL INFORMATION?
Why have a Website that tells you that you shouldn’t actually believe it, but to phone their office? God. Why not just spend a million Rand on a bigger call centre system and just forget about doing the Web.
Jan 20th, 2009 at 12:57 pm
lol, I have better looking Joomla sites laying around the internet :P
Jan 20th, 2009 at 1:02 pm
Hey chris, lol better give guiness a call for record on most commentd article ey =]
Jan 20th, 2009 at 1:04 pm
Anyone care to sql inject it to gain access to the IEC databases? Shouldn’t be too hard given all the server errors already found.
Jan 20th, 2009 at 1:04 pm
Hehe Devon, if it carries on like this, I just might do that ;)
Jan 20th, 2009 at 1:05 pm
@ian – As funny as that would be, let’s rather not go there bud :)
Jan 20th, 2009 at 1:35 pm
I must say i was quite surprised to have not seen a comments like Ian’s earlier. But yes i don’t think we would want to know the results :-/
Jan 20th, 2009 at 2:35 pm
Excerpt from an email I sent the IEC in the beginning of November 2008:
“I believe that 3 million Rand has been earmarked for making the website compliant – this is an excessive amount of money for the task at hand – in fact, it smells of corruption and people skimming money “off the top”. As a public body, I assume the IEC is publicly audited and is also subject the to Public Finance Management Act: therefore I sincerely request that the IEC adheres to the law and the principles of good governance when spending the public’s money on upgrading the website. I will say it again, R3 million is excessive and I find it hard to see how that pricetag can be justified for the task at hand.”
Needless to say, I received no feedback.
Jan 20th, 2009 at 2:39 pm
Interesting Debbie, thanks for coming in and sharing that!
I know you’re not kakker ;)
Jan 20th, 2009 at 2:54 pm
If the IEC’s financial matters are accountable to parliament (see my earlier comment), isn’t there some law or statute or something that would allow people to actually review their spending?
If not, it’d be great if someone would just pull a Wikileaks on them…
Jan 20th, 2009 at 3:03 pm
lol Wogan,
dont tempt me i know one of the African heads for wikileaks :P
Jan 20th, 2009 at 3:34 pm
I think that all public officers’ performance should be visible to the public through a scorecard where information is updated quarterly.
That way we can question why a non-performing official was still in office even though their performance might be shocking.
This type of system should also include financial matters – seeing that we fund it (well partially anyway).
This system would lead to more transparency and ultimately accountability of all parties all the way up the chain. That way no one can claim ignorance.
….OUCH…. just got slapped with reality – probably won’t happen. Who wants a neat system like this where you actually have to be accountable to the public?
Jan 20th, 2009 at 3:36 pm
Peeps, right, now this is what the new elections website SHOULD look like..
http://imod.co.za/index.php/2009/01/20/this-is-what-the-new-elections-website-should-look-like/
Enjoy :)
Jan 20th, 2009 at 8:12 pm
Well the new posted one, looks a hell of a lot better :)
Jan 20th, 2009 at 9:04 pm
Libisi Maphanga, I checked my records and you were one of the handful of people at the IEC people copied in on my email sent two and a half months ago, and as quoted above.
Libisi: “I am disappointed that before expressing your anger and alleging corruption, you did not have the decency of establishing the correctness of the information you are responding to.”
You, sir, were provided with an opportunity to address the allegations of corruption, and correct the misunderstanding (if any) on how much was being spent, and for what. You along with three of your colleagues at the IEC chose not to respond to my email. The public DID have the decency to try and establish the correctness of the information. It is the IEC who did not have the decency to reply.
You have another chance to represent the IEC fairly here and explain the facts if the public is understanding them incorrectly.
“I can assure everybody that there is no corruption involved, the IEC is proud of its open, fair and transparent procurement processes.”
In accordance with the Promotion of Access to Information Act, what documentation should I request from the Independent Electoral Commission, which details the tender as put out by the IEC (and in what publications), and the tender selection process as followed by the IEC? If a “fair and transparent procurement process” was indeed followed, you’ll have no problem keeping it as “open” as you say it is, and you’ll point me in the right direction without my having to submit a formal PAIA request.
Libisi, as I mentioned in my email to you, I respect the work of the IEC and in all honesty feel that the IEC is one of the few chapter nine institutions which is a standard-setter for the kind of democracy we all pray for. However, sir, you must understand that the public is frustrated by what appears to us as taxmoney being put into the backpockets of a privileged few, instead of going towards improving the nation.
Please, if we are wrong, provide us with the documentation: the IEC has a golden opportunity to prove that they remain a standard-setter for our democracy.
Jan 20th, 2009 at 10:51 pm
@Debbie: Emails often don’t get responded to by South African companies and organisations.
I’ve sent emails to Lux, The Independent Democrats, the CEO of the SPCA, Eskom and numerous other people and organisations and received no reply whatsoever.
If they don’t feel like responding they just don’t.
I have already proposed that legislation be tabled that makes it mandatory for organisations of a certain stature and / or size to register their own domain, keep it online 24/7, publish a web site which discloses a set of defined information and respond to emails to various defined addresses within 1 working day or be fined a certain amount per incident per day.
Jan 20th, 2009 at 11:05 pm
Am I the only one that’s bothered by the fact that this woman says that the site was below 10% of R3mil? That’s still R300 000 which is a COLOSSAL waste of money for what they got …
Jan 20th, 2009 at 11:07 pm
Or man, I can’t tell by the name
Jan 21st, 2009 at 6:57 am
I think we should avoid confusing the issues here.
The R3 million wasn’t spent to build the IEC website. The site has been in its current state for many years. But it did have underlying problems, which is why the IEC closed it for users not using Windows/IE.
The R3 million was budgeted to fix the legacy issues the site had.
It is not really an interface issue at all. Having a better looking website would be ideal but it doesn’t necessarily fix the underlying problems the site had.
The R3 million figure originally came from a story I wrote last year after an interview with the IEC. I’m not sure exactly what the money was spent on but if you consider that the original website cost money to develop and now more money has been spent to fix the problems it had, the R3 million is an underestimate of the total cost of the site.
Jan 21st, 2009 at 1:05 pm
Initially I thought this to be a spoof… but alas, it is not.
Jan 22nd, 2009 at 7:29 pm
WOW, I am lost for words. Here I am struggling to make ends meet, developing websites, and this rubbish appears, for this amount. I mean even 10% would do me. This site is so bad, I had to turn the screen away from the window when my dog walked passed, in case he got angry and attacked the screen.
Have you seen the other site, I believe it is the home site of the company that developed is http://www.pdca.co.za, its just as frot.
Jan 29th, 2009 at 8:26 am
@ Robert Bravery,
I am also out of words. Why don’t you go back to doing your dog because that is the only thing you can do now.
Kind Regards
Mr. Malesela Samuel Mogale
Jan 29th, 2009 at 9:58 am
chris this clearly is a troll.
plz ban his IP or @ least give it to us so we can make sure that this is the real guy.
Feb 7th, 2009 at 9:09 am
The power of BEE. I’m surprised that you’re all surprised by the low standards.
Feb 7th, 2009 at 12:21 pm
@MP3: Perhaps, but whatever the reason, we cannot afford to continue to allow poor quality contractors to take on any jobs.
I believe that when a project fails, which it clearly has, the head of the organisation should be replaced as well as those directly responsible.
We must always demand the highest standard from those who have sworn to serve us.
Feb 7th, 2009 at 12:30 pm
@MP3 – I hear what you’re saying, but in my opinion, let’s leave BEE out of this, it tends towards racial discusions and that isn’t what this is about.
It’s about, as @Richard said, delivering a quality good. This has not happened and that’s why people are annoyed. Our tax money is being wasted in a big way and we want to know what the deal is.
I agree Richard, if they want to be in the positions of power to serve this country, they at least need to stand up and deliver!
Feb 7th, 2009 at 1:42 pm
@Chris & @Richard, hiya :) indeed valid points and I actually do agree. I just think fluffing it up and playing it so PC when clearly there are questionable credentials is a bit pointless when it’s the root cause of the resulting product.
But hey, I’ve been wrong before… lol, but before I get crucified for my opinionated opinion thanks for the article it was excellent!
Feb 7th, 2009 at 1:44 pm
YE bud, don’t worry at all, I know what you’re talking about, I just find that the minute people start throwing around BEE, nothing ever gets done in the end, so there’s no point using that as a firing tool :)
Feb 7th, 2009 at 4:53 pm
@Chris: Yes, exactly. It’s not our responsibility to determine what caused the project to fail. That is the responsibility of the head of the IEC or his replacement.
As the public, we are here only to demand results, and where government fails us, we must hold them accountable.
In my opinion, the biggest problem with the South African government is its failure to get rid of useless people.
If a person can’t do the job they are appointed to, or they screw up, they must be gone in 50 seconds flat. No more excuses or second chances. It is an enormous responsibility and a privilege to serve in government. Only the very best must be our standard.
Feb 7th, 2009 at 9:01 pm
Russell
Jan 20th, 2009 at 10:15 am Don’t think of the cost as 3 million… Just think of it as only 6 cents for every 48 million people in South Africa…
South Africa officially has 47-million citizens plus some 5-million economic refugees and more streaming in from the rest of Africa every day…Yet the country only has 7.7-million officially-registered permanent taxpayers – that is how much for every taxpayer???
Feb 26th, 2009 at 6:16 am
@Chris, Deem, T333 and Followers http://www.evertbopp.com/images/arguing.jpg
Feb 26th, 2009 at 7:49 am
Haha mogale cracked a funny!
http://www.instantrimshot.com/