rupp@cod.NOSC.MIL (William L. Rupp) (11/20/87)
------- I believe posters to this group have missed one very important aspect of the projection of election winners by television and radio networks. One poster asked why election officials could not simply withold returns until all polls have closed. That wouldn't help! The networks also use data collected in *exit polls* to make their projections. Network people stop voters as they leave the polling places and ask them how they voted. It's like a mini-election. The data are then fed to the network computers which analyze them and project probable winners. So, short of suspending voters' Constitutional right to talk to reporters, and the networks' Constitutional right to free speech (i.e., the right to broadcast results of their analysis of exit poll data), I think these projections will continue. Some have suggested that voters lie to the reporters, telling them that they voted for someone other than the candidates and issues they really voted for. This will never work. People tend to tell the truth by and large to poll takers. Also, deliberately lying does not sound like a good practice within sight of the U.S. flag in front of the polling place. I don't know the answer, or even if there is a problem. It sometimes makes me feel uneasy when the media announce a winner on the basis of 15% of the polling places reporting. (This probably refers to actual semi-offical returns; the exit-poll data, I think, are used to make preliminary estimates.) On the other hand, I think Congress easily could do more harm than good by fiddling with what the networks can say on election day. That seems like a poor day to limit Constitutional rights. (I hope someone who has personal knowledge of how the networks make their projections will post more detail and correct any inaccuracies that I may have included. I do not claim to be an expert on this. I would especially like to know what systems and software is used to made the projections.) Bill ====================================================================== I speak for myself, and not on behalf of any other person or organization .........................How's that, Gary? ======================================================================
nmm@ers.UUCP (Neil McCulloch) (11/22/87)
In article <899@cod.NOSC.MIL>, rupp@cod.NOSC.MIL (William L. Rupp) writes: > So, short of suspending voters' Constitutional right to talk to reporters, > and the networks' Constitutional right to free speech (i.e., the right to > broadcast results of their analysis of exit poll data), I think these > projections will continue. Some have suggested that voters lie to the > reporters, telling them that they voted for someone other than the > candidates and issues they really voted for. This will never work. > People tend to tell the truth by and large to poll takers. Also, > deliberately lying does not sound like a good practice within sight > of the U.S. flag in front of the polling place. You mean the flag will zap them with a bolt of lightning? > preliminary estimates.) On the other hand, I think Congress easily > could do more harm than good by fiddling with what the networks can say > on election day. That seems like a poor day to limit Constitutional > rights. In Canada there is an outright ban on any polls being published. The point is quite fundamental. In Canada it is realised that in order to protect the democratic process it is more important that the election process be as fair as possible than the media's right to free speech. The media have there rights curtailed for a specified period of time in order that the individual's rights and the nation's requirement for a fair un-skewed election is secured. A trade off of such as this once every 5 years or so seems an admirable compromise. Now if only the election act were changed to acknowledge the fact that while the polls in Newfoundland close at 2000, they won't close in BC for another 4.5 hours. neil
ignatz@chinet.UUCP (Dave Ihnat) (11/23/87)
In article <716@ers.UUCP>, nmm@ers.UUCP (Neil McCulloch) writes: > In Canada there is an outright ban on any polls being published. > The point is quite fundamental. In Canada it is realised that in order > to protect the democratic process it is more important that the election > process be as fair as possible than the media's right to free speech. > The media have there rights curtailed for a specified period of time > in order that the individual's rights and the nation's requirement for > a fair un-skewed election is secured. A trade off of such as this once > every 5 years or so seems an admirable compromise. ... Well, maybe...but there's a real problem any time you decide to allow such suspension. For now, it's elections; but it also includes, since the precedent has been set, the possibility of other issues also permitting suspension of a free press. For that matter, it seems to me that the only country in the world that doesn't have an official censorship mechanism is the US, isn't it? I would suspect that the inviolability of the First Amendment is what's prevented that. What has endangered such freedom, though, is a lack of concomitant responsibility on the part of the news services. It used to be common for a public official to call in the Press and let them in on a breaking story, with the understanding that it *would not* be released until it couldn't adversely affect the issue at hand. I'm not saying the gentlemen and ladies of the Press today are less ethical than their precursors, but the intense competetion and the minute-by-minute mentality of TV have combined to make such a move, today, an act of idiocy. -- Dave Ihnat ihnp4!homebru!ignatz || ihnp4!chinet!ignatz (w) (312) 88ind oat
kurt@tc.fluke.COM (Kurt Guntheroth) (11/23/87)
The constitutional right to free speech is not necessarily unlimited. When it conflicts with elections, it may be constitutional to suspend it temporarily. We'll see. You need only a very small sample, say a few thousand people chosen in a way that matches the national demographics, to get the results in advance. In fact, when was the last time a national election was decided on election day anyway. I don't remember one. They usually knew weeks ahead who would win, by the same polling process.
brad@looking.UUCP (11/24/87)
In article <1891@chinet.UUCP> ignatz@chinet.UUCP (Dave Ihnat) writes: > >In article <716@ers.UUCP>, nmm@ers.UUCP (Neil McCulloch) writes: >> In Canada there is an outright ban on any polls being published. > >Well, maybe...but there's a real problem any time you decide to allow >such suspension. For now, it's elections; but it also includes, >since the precedent has been set, the possibility of other issues also >permitting suspension of a free press. For that matter, it seems to >me that the only country in the world that doesn't have an official >censorship mechanism is the US, isn't it? I would suspect that the >inviolability of the First Amendment is what's prevented that. > Dave Ihnat > ihnp4!homebru!ignatz || ihnp4!chinet!ignatz > (w) (312) 882-4673 I don't think this is so much censorship of the press as a declaration that certain information is confidential. The returning office has every right to pass a regulation saying that all poll results are confidential to those whose polls have already closed. And if ticket scalping laws are any precedent, you can also pass laws that forbid certain activities within X distance of some special public event. We already have laws that prohibit any political advertising within sight of a polling station on election day. Do you not have similar rules? Of course, our laws go further than that, and that's probably bad. But I think you could design laws to prevent this activity without putting a gag on the press. Not that gag laws aren't uncommon now, both in the US and Canada. Judges make them regularly, and trial details of all kinds (such as the names of juvenile offenders) are not available for publication. Anything to do with national security can't be published either. If you're worried about the thin edge of the wedge, it's in the door already. -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
ruiu@tic.UUCP (Dragos Ruiu) (11/24/87)
In article <1891@chinet.UUCP>, ignatz@chinet.UUCP (Dave Ihnat) writes: > > permitting suspension of a free press. For that matter, it seems to > me that the only country in the world that doesn't have an official > censorship mechanism is the US, isn't it? > You can say that on a nation-wide basis, but check some of the laws in state legislatures. North-Carolina springs to mind. This is quickly going off topic. Please redirect to talk.???. I would have but I don't receive talk groups. -- Dragos Ruiu Disclaimer: My opinons are my employer's, I'm unemployed! UUCP:{ubc-vision,mnetor,vax135,ihnp4}!alberta!edson!tic!dragos!work (403) 432-0090 #1705, 8515 112th Street, Edmonton, Alta. Canada T6G 1K7 Never play leapfrog with Unicorns...
ben@hpldola.HP.COM (Benjamin Ellsworth) (11/27/87)
Would someone explain just what "fair elections" mean in this context? My understanding of fair is that none of the previously established rules were broken. Publishing the poll results breaks no rules, and I don't think that there should be any rules regarding polls. Simply because, in a functioning democratic republic the polls would not be have any effect. People would make their decision based on the candidates and their platforms not on what happened in the East. I seems to me that the fundamental problem is why people vote, or choose not to vote. This is the issue, not the pollsters. Solve the fundamental problem and the attendant ills evaporate. ------------ Benjamin Ellsworth ...hplabs!hpldola!ben "Favoring re-design over endless patching..."