Canadians Ignore Ban On Tweeting Election Results
from the now,-will-anyone-get-fined dept
We recently noted that Canadians faced jailtime and fines, if they tweeted Canadian election results prior to the polls closing. The law, originally intended for TV and radio, despite a total lack of evidence that reporting on the results actually influences elections, has been deemed to cover the internet as well. As news of this spread, more and more people promised to tweet results, and plenty of people did so, with some setting up a specific site, TweetTheResults.ca to aggregate all the election result tweets.So, now the big question is if Election Canada will do anything about this. It admits that it only investigates if there's a direct complaint, so most Canadian election Tweeters are probably safe, unless they have a really mean enemy. Still, one hopes that this attention will finally help Canada drop this pointless anti-free speech law.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: canada, elections, free speech
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Do you have any evidence that there is a "complete and total lack of evidence," or is this just meta-FUD?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
How is that a better question? I've made no claim either way. I have no evidence either way.
The issue is whether Mike can back up his claim with evidence. He's the one that made the claim.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
So, while you might claim Mike's post is FUD for lack of evidence (which may be true), it seems intellectually dishonest to ignore the original implied assertion.
It is a weak argument to simply say, "well you have no evidence either." We are all capable of assessing that state. If you have references that there is a negative effect, that would be a useful contribution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Thanks for playing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Assuming there is until proof there isn't is what results in fear mongering and uninformed decision making.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Assuming there is until proof there isn't is what results in fear mongering and uninformed decision making.
Really, you think the presumption is that there is no influence here? Sorry, but rational thought would mean presume nothing and see what the evidence indicates. Otherwise it's just faith-based.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
One doesn't have to prove that there is no evidence. The lack of evidence itself is proof of the lack of evidence. There is no evidence that proves that there is no evidence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Wait... really? That's not at all what you said. I said that there's no evidence to support a position -- which is exactly what you're saying we should presume... and then you whine that I'm assuming there's no evidence because I haven't proven there's no evidence?
*head explodes*
However, since you seem incapable of understanding, feel free to do your own research, and you will quickly learn that the various attempts to judge if there's an impact have found *no evidence* that there's an impact.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
*head explodes*
Nice try, but no cigar. I'm saying that the presumption should be that's no evidence either way. You're saying that the evidence shows there is no connection. Big difference. Next time I'll try and explain it more s l o w l y.
However, since you seem incapable of understanding, feel free to do your own research, and you will quickly learn that the various attempts to judge if there's an impact have found *no evidence* that there's an impact.
So wait, now there are "various attempts." Now we're getting somewhere. That's all I was asking. How did you determine that there is no impact? Now you're saying there have been "attempts" that have failed to show this purported impact. Cool. You didn't mention that in the article. Care to point us to them so we can judge them for ourselves? Or are you filing that under "completely and totally debunked" and "super double-secret"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What he said was
"The law, originally intended for TV and radio, despite a total lack of evidence that reporting on the results actually influences elections, has been deemed to cover the internet as well."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Well played, FUDmaster-, er, buster....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Well played, FUDmaster-, er, buster....
Nope. I'm not asking him to prove a negative. He said there is no evidence that there is an influence. I wondered if he just made that up (which is my suspicion), or was that claim based on actual evidence.
This is basic stuff. Either Mike has a basis for his claim, or he does not. He calls people out on stuff like this all the time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You're asking him to prove a negative.
Seriously, how could you possibly look at that and argue you aren't asking him to prove a negative?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
So, how exactly do you show evidence of a lack of evidence? While you're at it, can you explain how this differs from proving a negative?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Simple, you say, "I know there is no basis for their claim because of X." Mike is saying that their claim has no basis. I am wondering how he determined this. What reliable information is Mike relying on to support his claim? If none, then he's just as bad as the people he claims to be debunking.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
So basically what you are asking for is:
Mike says there is no evidence and you want evidence that there is no evidence?
Well, OK. I have searched far and wide for this apparently non-existent evidence and this is what I found: **nothing**.
That was easy.
If you are so hellbent on proving Mike wrong - why don't you dig up some evidence that says this type of reporting influences elections.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
If someone were to say "the Andromeda galaxy is made of cheese curd" and someone else said "there's no proof of that", you can't argue "how do you know there's no proof!". Show the proof or shut up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
If someone were to say "the Andromeda galaxy is made of cheese curd" and someone else said "there's no proof of that", you can't argue "how do you know there's no proof!". Show the proof or shut up.
Sure, I can ask them "how do you know there's no proof." They could then explain that there's no proof of that because astrophysicists have pointed their fancy machines at the galaxy and told them that there's no evidence of cheese curd there.
Spin it all you want, but Mike made a claim and provided no basis for his claim. I'm simply asking if there is a basis for his claim, and if so, what is is that basis. It's not that hard to understand.
If I said Groove Tiger is one groovy dude, and then Dark Helmet says that you're not, a person could ask Dark Helmet to explain why he thinks you're not groovy. That person isn't asking Dark Helmet to prove the impossible. He's simply asking Dark Helmet how he determined that I'm wrong about your grooviness.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There's this cliche about a pot and kettle...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
In order for something to be considered scientific it needs to be falsifiable.
Mike is claiming that there is "a total lack of evidence that reporting on the results actually influences elections"
This is a falsifiable claim. If someone can provide evidence, they will have falsified his claim. If no one can, then his claim is still a reasonable one until falsified. That's how science works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
As multiple people have pointed out, you're asking me to prove a negative. That's ridiculous. Please, please, please, if you're going to use the name FUDbuster, stop spreading FUD.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Funny how you are deflecting and not answering the question. No surprise there.
I've asked simply this: What is the basis for your claim that there is a lack of evidence? How did you make this determination?
Don't try and turn this into proving a negative. It's not. I'm simply asking you to explain how you arrived at your conclusion that there is no evidence.
Share I warm up the crickets? I expect either no answer, or more childish name-calling. Anything but answer the question, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
That's no what you said originally. The basis of my claim was reading multiple reports on the subject, including some of the research on the impact of voting information, none of which suggests there is a significant impact on voting habits.
Don't try and turn this into proving a negative. It's not. I'm simply asking you to explain how you arrived at your conclusion that there is no evidence.
Yet. It is about proving a negative. I pointed out that there's no evidence to support these claims. You can prove me wrong: point me to some evidence. I've looked. I can't find any. I've read other reports that also note that the evidence does not support this claim.
You asked me to prove that there's no evidence. That is, by definition, about proving a negative.
Share I warm up the crickets? I expect either no answer, or more childish name-calling. Anything but answer the question, right?
The only one engaging in child-ish name calling is you, with your childish "crickets" any time people get so sick of calling you out for false or misleading statements. You're the one who chose the named "FUDbuster," buster. If people pick on your for the fact that your name is misleading FUD itself, well, that's really your issue.
Now, I have more important things to do than to respond to your childish attacks again. Break out whatever "crickets" you want. Stomp your feet, go ahead. I'm not replying any further because I have meetings the rest of the day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Here's what I said: "Do you have any evidence that there is a "complete and total lack of evidence," or is this just meta-FUD?"
That's not asking you to prove there's no evidence.
No matter... Now you're claiming that you have evidence, but you don't want to share with the class. I guess it's "magical, double-secret" evidence. Got it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
big country
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: big country
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: big country
Here is a map from the National Research Council Canada: http://www.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/eng/services/inms/time-services/time-zones.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Elections Canada runs the elections, and it's the Elections Canada staff that does the counting. That staff, and only that staff, would know the results before the final totals are announced.
All they need to do is keep the counting staff on duty and off the internet until the polls close.
Any other information that may be obtained is at best an exit poll, something that is no more than an aggregate total of how people said they voted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Freedom of Speech
For all the crap we Americans get from Canadians about our policies, I'm shocked they ignore this glaring disparity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Freedom of Speech
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Freedom of Speech
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Freedom of Speech
There, I fixed it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Freedom of Speech
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Freedom of Speech
To make it simple. Would you give the score of a game before taking bets?
Some part of Canada get results 4 hours before the vote end on the other side.
You could literally wait for the results of Maritime, Quebec and Ontario (which constitute half of Canada's population) and then vote accordingly in B-C.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Freedom of Speech
Criticize Americans all you want, we would never do that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Freedom of Speech
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110104/02392412508/fakecelebrity-twitterers-bloggers-may -face-jail-california.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091123/0139267047.shtml (arrested for not sending out a tweet)
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100521/0421119524.shtml
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Freedom of Speech
Freedom of speech is mostly gone now in America.
Freedom to not be groped is gone.
Freedom (Responsibility) has been replaced by
Government (Not my Fault / Not my Problem)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Freedom of Speech
Simple fix...
Time Zone #1: 6:30 AM - 6:30 PM
Time Zone #2: 7:30 AM - 7:30 PM
Time Zone #3: 8:30 AM - 8:30 PM
Time Zone #4: 9:30 AM - 9:30 PM
Everyone votes during the exact same duration of the day and polls across Canada close at the exact same moment. I know for a fact that this happened with those on MST (Alberta & Saskatchewan) and CST (Manitoba), so it can't be all that hard to do for everyone else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Newfoundland needs to vote too...
Time Zone #2: 7:30 AM - 7:30 PM
Time Zone #3: 8:30 AM - 8:30 PM
Time Zone #4: 9:30 AM - 9:30 PM
Time Zone #5: 10:00 AM - 10:00 PM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Newfoundland needs to vote too...
PST/PDT: 6:30 AM - 6:30 PM
MST/MDT: 7:30 AM - 7:30 PM
CST/CDT: 8:30 AM - 8:30 PM
EST/EDT: 9:30 AM - 9:30 PM
AST/ADT: 10:30 AM - 10:30 PM
NST/NDT: 11:00 AM - 11:00 PM
Anyway you slice it, the polls would be be closing pretty early in BC, and opening pretty late in Newfoundland.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Newfoundland needs to vote too...
IF they think this is a big problem that some people get to see results first. I don't think it is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Freedom of Speech
Though some news stations in the past have flaunted that rule too, and declared a winner before all votes were in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Freedom of Speech
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Can you imagine...
Ok it is still bad. Who cares. The majority of people who vote have decided long before voting day who they will vote for. Only a small minority would change their vote at the last minute based on information of who is ahead in other areas of the country.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Can you imagine...
if this timezone thing even came up here you can bet there'd be people changing their votes based on what happened in the earlier time zones... some parties would get written off compleatly, other people would change their votes to the one most likely to outdo someone they dislike rather than the one most likely to do what best represents them (we already have this problem on a major scale) ... the list of potentual abuses is insane.
we also have a couple of bans in place around elections: all the advertising must be down by polling day, no campaigning can be done on polling day, Nothing is reported until after the polls close... actually, election day proper always seems to be fairly quiet around here.
'course, before hand you get the typical campaign nonsense, and after you get anywhere from a couple of days to several Months of wrangling before we actually have a government (which is demented, because it's all over who agrees to support what and who gets which ministarial position... the first half of which is nonsense on so many levels it's not funny, and the second is just plain corrupt when you realise that the people making the deals actually have no right to be doing so... all ministers are Supposed to be apointed by the monarch... *headshakey* on paper our system is great. tradition and the westminster model's habit of filling in the gaps when someone stops doing their job however... )
ok, this was getting into a long and derailed rant, but the gist of it is that i can totaly see the logic of this law.
(now, somewhat massively more suspect is the law passed here a while back that forbid any third party entity saying ANYTHING about which party people should support for about six months before the election campaign without submiting all sorts of paper work so it could be counted against that party's campaign budget...)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Can you imagine...
http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=vot&dir=bkg&document=ec90815&lang= e
I can really understand why you would like to keep it quiet for few hours. Having such a vote in the east could lead you to vote for the winning party in order for you to have chance to elect an MP that will be minister. That will give you move visibility to you local region.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The solution is obvious
This has always been an idiotic system. Occasionally Elections Canada goes after somebody for publishing results, but why are there results available to publish in the first place? If we're trying to be so pure and high minded about the election being fair, I don't think it's asking too much for Elections Canada themselves to hold onto any and all results until the last polling station closes.
Last time I checked, and sadly showing my age, CBC Radio International on short-wave broadcasts, or used to broadcast, results live to the world as they came available. CBC? Government run? Really? How is, or was, that legal? I admit I don't even own a short-wave radio at present, but in the '80s and '90s it was so simple to defeat the publication ban that I always treated it for the joke that it was, and is.
It is Elections Canada who really must be called to account, as they have all of the ballots, and all the discretion in the world. Why are they making results available before the polls close?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Of course theres an effect
A quick glance at research on exit poles (similar problem) seems to indicate that the effect is not that big, but that its there. Of course. (for instance http://www.jstor.org/pss/2748722)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The real reason
In reality, once Quebec and Ontario have voted, the election is pretty much a done deal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The real reason
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Seriously?
As far as the whole "prove a negative" argument goes:
1. Starting point should be "Freedom of Speech"
2. Evidence of harm is then needed to justify *any* censorship by the government
If some people can't even agree to point 1... then that's a completely different kind of argument.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Narrowminded......
[ link to this | view in chronology ]