The election result ban and the internet
With permission, I've reprinted an article appearing in today's Kingston Whig-Standard, print edition, about the publication of elections results in Canada, the law, and the internet.
Early results pop up on Web: Net sites large and small thwart broadcast ban by Elections Canada
The Kingston Whig-Standard
Wednesday, January 25, 2006
Page: 3
Section: Community
Byline: Ian Elliot
Source: The Kingston Whig-Standard
It is illegal to broadcast election results until after the last polls in British Columbia are closed, but it was more difficult Monday night to avoid seeing the developing results than to find them.
Despite the legal blackout on reporting results until 10 p.m. EST, innumerable websites, both in Canada and offshore, began posting and discussing live results shortly after they became available at 7 p.m.
Details on east-coast races were also easily obtainable through foreign newswires available through electronic newsfeeds, chatrooms and newsgroups.
Elections Canada lumps all the new technology under the category of "broadcasting" and forbids it so westerners are not discouraged from voting after learning results of earlier time zones.
A major Supreme Court case on the issue is pending but most Canadian bloggers - people who post news and opinion on personal websites - respected the federal ban, while at the same time saying the law seems an awkward attempt to govern 21st century communications with 19th century legislation.
"What Elections Canada has here is a piece of legislation that is clearly not created for modern technology," said Tamara Small, a PhD candidate in political studies at Queen's University whose specialty is the role of the Internet in Canadian elections.
She noted postings on a web blog or electronic bulletin board do not fall into the traditional idea of "broadcasting" and that the law is aimed at institutions or large private broadcasters - not individuals sitting at a computer in Halifax posting results from their riding on a web site in the United States.
"It's a very complicated issue, and Elections Canada has not really made a decision on the role of Internet communications," she said.
"I don't even know if Elections Canada really likes this law," agreed Romeo St. Martin, a blogger and operator of Ottawa website Politicswatch.com, which has been closely following the issue.
"The fact is, it's an information age, and unless Elections Canada starts prosecuting every blogger, there isn't much they can do.
"As long as someone in Atlantic Canada has got a phone and they know someone who has an Internet application who can post the results to the web, there isn't really anything they can do about it."
Steve Janke, whose Angry In The Great White North blog was one of the highest-profile ones in the campaign, also respected the blackout but noted it seemed wrong to call websites "broadcasting" under the Elections Act.
"It's one thing to broadcast it on television, but if it's on a website, you have to hunt for it, it's not like television which is a passive medium that you can be exposed to because someone left it on," he said.
"I can agree with the principle of what they're trying to do, but at the same time, the Internet is different from broadcasting ... I would argue if you don't want to see what's on a website, don't look."
Ironically, the CBC was the highest-profile offender on election night. For nearly an hour, Radio Canada International streamed an east-coast election newscast through its site until the error was noticed and it was shut down.
Elections Canada wouldn't say yesterday whether the agency planned any action against the CBC or other violators, but bloggers themselves say it would be next to impossible for officials to prosecute the thousands who did, or to prevent a more widespread violation of the blackout during the next election.
The American news agglomerator Fark.com, on which users can post and comment on news articles and which has a large and vocal Canadian following, featured several long discussions about east-coast results posted before the blackout ended, all available to Canadians with the click of a mouse.
Drew Curtis, the founder of the site, said yesterday that website owners can only be held responsible for obeying the laws of the country in which they live.
With nearly two million page views on weekdays, and users free to post articles and comments, it would be practically impossible for website operators like him to screen out all content to which someone would object, he noted.
"It's like if China contacted us and said there's something on our site that offends them and they want it taken down," he said.
"If China wants to block it, we see it as their problem, not ours. Or take Uzbekistan - its president banned the wearing of fuzzy underwear today. If the president of Uzbekistan called me and said I'm running an ad for fuzzy underwear on the site and I have to take it down because it broke their law, I wouldn't."
Ed Morrissey runs the U.S.-based Captain's Quarter's blog, which broke a publication ban on the Gomery inquiry. He made no secret of his plans to publish Canadian election results as fast as he could get them Monday, which he did.
"The public is less likely to respect embargoed information, especially when it's public information that's embargoed," he said yesterday.
But nearly everyone agrees the gag-order laws will be rewritten or blocked, in part because of what happened Monday.
ielliot@thewhig.com
© 2006 Osprey Media Group Inc. All rights reserved.
Skew my story on Skewz.com
Rate political news for their bias, read related stories, and leave your own skewed commentary
Search for more opinions from Canadian bloggers on these related keywords
Sphere presents related news articles and blog posts
Sphere It!
Comments
These are old laws designed by Neanderthal knuckle-dragging, authoritarian-loving Liberals who can't spell 'democracy', let alone practise it. They feast on the ignorant and ill-informed. What more could you expect?
Posted by: rockyt at January 25, 2006 06:52 PM
realistically besides a blackout how can you control it? ya can't just haul every blogger or commenter off to jail. welcome the Lefties to 21st century kickin and screamin all the way.
great post angry, hey you're not so very angry anymore.
Posted by: kelly at January 25, 2006 10:23 PM
it's so damn simple its nuts
no info gets out till the last poll closes
but the libs couldnt figure that out
i know it sucks fot he east coast to wait to find out info but its the only way.
of course the exit polsters could probably give an answer in the afternoon
Posted by: rob at January 25, 2006 11:15 PM
If the Liberals had won the election, I would not have been surprised to see them attempt to expand the provisions of the Elections Act to clamp down on bloggers.
China is, with Google's help, censoring information from Chinese Internet users.
Tyrants always fear truth and the communication of the truth.
The Conservative government is not likely to attempt to increase the restrictions on freedoms.
We need to fight to keep the freedoms we have left and work to take back ones which have been peeled away.
TIZ
Posted by: TIZReporter at January 25, 2006 11:22 PM
I agree with the theoretical PURPOSE of the law, as I understand it. It's to prevent either the discouraging or encouraging of voters in later time zones because of results in earlier time zones.
My solution for that problem is to have NO counting of ballots in ANY time zone until after ALL voting locations in ALL time zones are closed. It would end that problem and only delay the election results by several hours.
Any comments on this?
Posted by: Dave at January 25, 2006 11:30 PM
A simple solution would be to have all polls close at the same time across the country. Have BC and YK close at 7; AB and NW at 8; SK at 8 or 9 depending on the time of year; MB at 9; ON and QC at 10; PE, NB, and NS at 11; and NL at 11:30 (I'm not sure what time zone Nunavut is in). Results would come in across the country at the same time, so no need for a blackout at all.
Posted by: Ed Minchau at January 25, 2006 11:34 PM
Sorry,
Off topic but it looks like the liberal leadership race has begun. Frank Mckenna has handed in his resignation to Steven Harper as our ambassador in Washington. Watching the reports I also saw that BS actually has support to run. It should be interesting to see if there is enough support for this traitor to make a credible run.
Cheers
Gerry
Posted by: gerryinmontreal at January 25, 2006 11:39 PM
Blackout is the least of Canada's democratic deficit problems. What ails Canadian democracy is not only its quasi-democratic fpp electoral system, or its autocratic PM control over both the legislative and judicial branches of governance, but also its skewed representative system.
On the one coast, BC-Alberta contain 23.4% of the population, and yet only command 21.3% of seats in parliament.
On the other coast, the Maritimes contain 7.3% of the population, but command 14.2% of seats in parliament. That means that a vote cast in BC-Alberta is worth less than half a vote cast in the Maritimes.
Under Canada’s history of virtual one party state party governance, these anomalies of inequitable representation have not been addressed because these anomalies favour the re-election of the same party that has governed Canada for most of its history under such skewed circumstances. Yet, in the US such anomalies are rectified pro-forma on an annual basis. Democracy is not difficult when there is democratic intent in governance.
Under the present fpp rules where 20 to 25% of possible voters pick ‘majority’ governments, and where even those voting are further skewed by such regional disparities where a vote in the Maritimes is worth fully two times a vote cast in the West, it is inevitable, under such undemocratic and unjust skewed electoral conditions, that the Liberal party will get back into power with 20 to 25% of the potential vote once this one party state party has had a two year chance to groom a new leader.
This present minority government’s two year space is the only chance ordinary Canadians have to reform the ‘democratic deficit’ that has denied Canada a normal, modern democracy for so long. Democratic reform, as advocated by Preston Manning, Ed Broadbent, and others for so long now, needs to be the top priority of this new unique minority government if Canada is to survive over the long term.
Posted by: brock at January 26, 2006 03:19 AM
"A simple solution would be to have all polls close at the same time across the country...."
Exactly. KISS. Now how "complicated" is that for those jokers running Elections Canada?
Posted by: JM at January 26, 2006 07:37 AM
The most disturbing aspect of these types of laws is the implicit assumption that the 'average' citizen just can't be trusted to 'properly' interpret information.
Posted by: AES at January 26, 2006 09:58 AM
Dave and rob nailed it.
Don't count or release the votes totals until a unified cross country time, reguardless of timezones. No one would be influenced by early election results, and that would be closer to true democracy.
You can't realistically suppress borderless blogging or free speech by toothless laws.
America could use this method as well.
Bush-Gore 2000; The Florida pan-handle being in a different time zone, the networks called Gore the winner while the pan-handle polls were still open for that extra hour. How many Repubilcan voters stayed home after listening the announcement of Gore's "victory"? The Florida pan-handle, with a heavy armed forced population, traditonally votes Republican.
Posted by: Pete at January 26, 2006 10:18 AM
Have you noticed the time zones?
if you close the polls at the same time across the country, polls in the east will have to be open much later, or the polls in BC will have to be closed too early...
Simple solution. Suspense. keep the polls open 7am - to 9pm LST (local standard time) lock the ballot boxes up overnight, and start counting at 9am the next morning. no counting - no results - no early reports effecting the vote in other areas. and no stomping on freedom of the press and freedom of speech... perhaps its simpler to stomp on peoples rights than to do something creative.
Posted by: Curtis at January 26, 2006 11:37 AM
Oh! and best of all. No long hours of boring talking heads disrupting CSI.
Posted by: Curtis at January 26, 2006 11:40 AM
Hey Steve, check this out
"Newspaper fights election results rule"
http://www.cbc.ca/pei/story/pe_news_20060126.html
Posted by: Angela at January 26, 2006 05:49 PM
There are plenty of examples of the problems, and plenty of exammples of how the information still gets out there.
The Florida example from the 2000 U.S. Presidential election was cited above. There were also reports of a push, called by union leaders on the East Coast, to get union voters on the west coast to the polls in high numbers in that same election. The goal was to not only ensure California's electoral votes went to Gore, but to attempt to undermine what was expected to be a close victory for Bush by impacting the overall popular vote.
Locking up the ballot boxes only prevents the general public from knowing what a few individuals already suspect: each party can scrutinize the voters, and will have a good idea how each polling station will report. So the Parties will have a reasonable idea what the results are even if they're not official, and can direct their compatriots based on that information.
Additionally, exit polling was conducted during this election, providing yet more information which, while not official, gives an indication how those ballot results are likely to turn out.
Posted by: Paul O at January 26, 2006 06:52 PM
Exit polling should be against the law. People leaving a polling place shouldn't be asked how they voted. It defeats the purpose of a secret ballot. (although with the serial numbers on them, I wonder how secret they really are)
Scrutineers don't have the right to see ballots, they probably have no clue how an election is going for their particular party.
Posted by: Curtis at January 26, 2006 07:39 PM
People can be asked how they voted; they have every right to not answer, or to lie in their answer.
Just as scrutineers don't see the ballots during the day. But they will have some idea of some number of their party's supporters, and will be able to notice if many or few of their own known supporters have passed through the polling station. While only a sampling, it is useful information.
And scrutineers do oversee the process of counting, and will be quite aware of how things are progressing once the box is opened. (Again, a reason to not open the box until the last polls ar closed.)
And although it isn't associated with the voter's name, the serial number was supposed to be removed before the ballot is deposited in the box.
Posted by: Paul O at January 26, 2006 08:05 PM
But the serial number is on both halves of the ballot.
The general feeling that a few people get, is of little interest, even for the 1 night such views would be entertaining, the election is over, nobody would care anymore.
Posted by: Curtis at January 26, 2006 11:38 PM
The serial number is on both halves of the ballot only if it has been misprinted.
The serial number appears on the stub, which remains in the ballot book and is not removed from there. It also appears on the counterfoil which is attached to the blank ballot when it is handed to the voter. The counterfoil is removed from the ballot and destroyed before the marked ballot is deposited in the ballot box.
This is done to ensure that the ballot being deposited is the same ballot which was handed to the voter.
The ballot, as deposited, should not have a serial number or any other mark on it which might identify the sequence in which it was cast, or in any other way might associate it with a specific voter.
Posted by: Paul O at January 27, 2006 01:26 AM
 
|
|
