Election News

One of the sillier elements of Canadian election law is that it is illegal to publish the results which have occured in Nfld. in British Columbia until the polls close in British Columbia.

One of the best things about Canadian election law is that it has no force or effect in the United States. Fresh from publishing the blacked out Gormery testimony which may very well cost the Liberal Party this election, Captain Ed at Captain’s Quarters announces:

CQ will start live-blogging the election starting at 6 pm Central Time this evening, with frequent updates as information “crosses my desk”, so to speak.captains quarters

It really is about time for Elections Canada to realize that you can’t control the internet any more than you could control long distance phones.

Thanks Ed!

Written by jay on January 23rd, 2006 with 5 comments.
Read more articles on Canadian Politics and Uncategorized.

Related articles

5 comments

Read the comments left by other users below, or:

Get your own gravatar by visiting gravatar.com Alan
#1. January 24th, 2006, at 12:21 AM.

From paragraph 64 of the Appeal Court ruling:

“It is convenient to note here that the respondent submitted that the ban in s. 329 is now obsolete because the advent of such things as satellite and cable television and the Internet makes enforcement difficult, if not impossible. He referred to some passages in the Lortie Commission Report to support his argument. In my view, difficulty in enforcement of the publication ban is irrelevant to the constitutional question. Many criminal and quasi-criminal offences are difficult to enforce but that does not mean that Parliament ought not to make them offences. The fact that the ban may be violated does not logically lead to the conclusion that the information imbalance between voters the ban seeks to remedy is not pressing and substantial. I would not accede to the argument that the relative ease by which the ban may be violated demands its constitutional demise.”

If the court is wrong then the Boingy copyright takers are too. That would be a bad planet to be on.

Get your own gravatar by visiting gravatar.com jay
#2. January 24th, 2006, at 12:46 AM.

At some point the inability to enforce a law, particularrily one which abridges a constitutionally protected right, means that the justiication for such abrigement fails. The logic behind the publication ban on results lies in the - suspect in my view - belief that voting behaviour will be skewed by the information which is banned. However, when anybody with a computer and an internet connection, can access that information the cow has left the barn. I would say that this point has been reached in re voting information in Canada.

I’ll leave the death of copyright for post election blogging.

Get your own gravatar by visiting gravatar.com Classic
#3. January 24th, 2006, at 2:42 AM.

_It’s a matter of int’l respect. Anyone (in the U.S. for example) who intentionally infringes against the democratic process rules of any recognized free country (like Canada) should face Internationally Agreed Upon charges.
_And with a democratic Russia now part of the G8 etc, let ‘em serve out their prison time in Siberia.

Get your own gravatar by visiting gravatar.com Carol
#4. January 24th, 2006, at 3:33 AM.

Take a look at this election results analysis tool described on this site:

Election Result Tool

Get your own gravatar by visiting gravatar.com Don
#5. January 24th, 2006, at 11:21 AM.

Well, I was wrong. I said 50 CPC seats in Ontario.

Leave your comment...

If you want to leave your comment on this article, simply fill out the next form:




You can use these XHTML tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong> .