From: mathew@unixg.ubc.ca (Mathew B Englander)
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Releasing Results B4 the polls close (was Re: Referendum and the west
Date: 8 Nov 92 03:17:17 GMT
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
NNTP-Posting-Host: unixg.ubc.ca

jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca (John Paul Morrison) writes:
>riese@litsun.epfl.ch (Marc Riese) writes:
>>Election blackouts exist so that people will THINK and vote BY THEMSELVES.
>>Didn't you have anything better to do before the results were out?
>
>I think for myself, and I don't need the government to keep me in
>the dark. I am not that concerned by poll reults, but on PRINCIPLE, I
>object to the government restricting information in this way.
>
>Last night, Washington, Oregon and California helped to carry Clinton
>into the Whitehouse. I doubt if anyone switched their votes just because New
>York voted for him. (Americans stick to principles like free speech, and don't
>let arbitrary govt. decrees override their right to free speech, just
>because the govt thinks it might be nicer for them).

I doubt any voters switched their votes from Bush to Clinton or vice-
versa, but there were probably a substantial number of voters in Pacific
states who switched to Perot after they found out Clinton already had it
in the bag. Their reasoning would have been: 

[before election day:] "I really hate Bush and want him out of office. 
Of Clinton and Perot I prefer Perot, but since Perot has no chance of
winning, voting for him could help to elect Bush."
[on election day:] "Since I already know the results from New York and
the other eastern states, I know that Bush has no chance of winning. There-
fore I might as well vote for Perot as a show of support for him."

There's no way, unfortunately, of measuring how much Perot's support
in Washington, Oregon, Hawaii, and Alaska was increased because of this
type of reasoning. It would be great to know how Perot fared in votes
cast *after* 5:30 pm PT as compared to votes cast before.

Of course, keep in mind that if the race had been close between Bush
and Clinton, Perot would have lost support in the Pacific states. His
supporters would have voted for their second-favourite candidate to
reduce the probability of their third-favourite winning the pres-
idency.

What's interesting about the US coverage was that the four networks
shared exit-poll data, which they didn't release for any state until
the polls closed in that state. For example, the networks all de-
clared that Clinton had won California at 8:01 PT, before any *actual*
votes from California had been counted.

The point is that they obviously knew the California winner at 7:59, but
didn't announce it so as not to affect the California polls. I suspect
this was done voluntarily, or at least by mutual agreement among the
four networks; however it is possible, even likely, that some states
did have laws against releasing exit-poll data before the polls closed
in that state.

On CNN's Crossfire, aired at 5:45 or so PT, Michael Kinsley said
something like "We have to watch what we say", implying that he had
exit-poll data he couldn't discuss on air.

Mathew Englander.
Newsgroups: can.politics