Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 21:25:33 EDT
From: andy <2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: Releasing Results B4 the polls close (was Re: Referendum and the w
 <1992Nov8.223631.3503@julian.uwo.ca> <92313.1814172893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
 <1992Nov9.021536.11958@julian.uwo.ca>

In article <1992Nov9.021536.11958@julian.uwo.ca>, wlsmith@valve.heart.rri.uwo.ca
(Wayne Smith) says:
>
>In article <92313.1814172893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> andy
><2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> writes:
>>>>I think the concern wasn't as much that people in the West would switch    r
>thei
>>>>vote but simply that they wouldn't bother voting because the election was
>>>seen
>>>>as over. In 1988 Bush was declared elected at 6:30 Pacific time, observers
>>>>noted a sudden 50% or so drop of the number of people who voted following
>>>>the announcement.
>>
>>>The only problem with people in Cal. not voting is that they also vote on
>>>Senate (or House?) representatives, or they vote on a lot of local/state
>>>(binding?) proposals or referendums, which, of course, everybody should
>>>participate in.  But we peasants in Canada don't get to take part in that
>>>kind of democracy, so there's not much lost when you're voting on a single
>>>issue or you have a single election vote to be cast...
>>
>>See above, there are individual MPs in the West who may have been defeated
>>or elected in a higher turnout. I don't know off hand but I'm sure if you
>>look at the result, there must have been SOME close races in BC and the
>>Praries. As well, knowledge of a tight race or possible minority government
>>may well effect the Westerners vote, it would also give them more knowledge
>>when voting than other Canadians, arguably an advantage that would be unfair.
>
>With our current federal system, it don't make 1 bit of difference who or
>what your local MP is (ie what team they play on, PC, LIB, etc).  They go
>to Ottawa and become a trained-flipper-slapping-seal in the House.  The
>only bit of good they can do their local constituency is if they hold a
>portfolio, or if they're in the cabinet.  Then the local constituency get's
>fed $$$ to insure the important person gets re-elected.
>
>The point is that if a national election has already been decided before
>the polls close in BC, then who gets elected in the various ridings really
>doesn't matter, because the person is not really a representative of
>the riding (in a democratic sense), and that person will have very little or
>no political influence while in the house (unless the person is a VIP, ie
>they hold a portfolio or they're in the cabinet).
>
>>The blackout at least ensures (or tries to ensure) that all Canadians have
>>the same knowledge or lack of advance knowledge about the election's outcome
>>when they vote.  I agree though, it would be preferable to either time the
>>polls so they close simultaneously (though this might not be fair by giving
>>Easterners less time in the day to vote than Westerners) or hold off counting
>>the ballots till the polls close everywhere (though this would increase the
>>possiblity of ballot box tampering, unless you expect scrutineers to do      g
>nothin
>>for three or four hours but stare at the ballot box.
>
>In a federal event, don't federal people count the vote?  If so, they could
>count the votes when ever their polls closed, and they could report the
>results
>back to the fed gov't, AND ONLY THE FED GOV'T, and then it would be up to the
>fed gov't to release the results at the very end.
>
>Right now, just how do those poll results get to us?

Obviously, you've never been a party hack!:) The problem is that each candidate
has the right to have scrutineers observe the ballots being counted (this is
good, it keeps the DROs honest and it prevents ballots from being dismissed
for silly reasons, there are cases of DROs simply making up a vote total
to benifit there fav candidate. Anyway, the DROs count the ballots in front of
the scrutineers and phone the results to the returning officer for the
constituency who, in turn tallies the total results for the riding. The
scrutineers phone their candidate's HQ's and report the result for the
poll they've done. The problem is if you try to ban the result from going out
it'll still leak out because of the scrutineers. What could be done is simply
ban the networks from going on the air with any results until all the national
results were known, despite the fact that various candidates would already
know if they won or not along with their workers and anyone who goes down
to party HQs.
Newsgroups: can.politics