Info on Election Day Posting - IMPORTANT

Love rules.

Like LTJ, I'll be pulling the vote, scrutineering, and then celebrating somewhere.  

If there's a possibility of a fine, why not put a 'hold' on new memberships during the three-hour crucial period - to keep the trolls out who join just to break the rules?

http://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/PBD

http://tweettheresults.ca/

Rebecca West wrote:

 

Here's a handy link to poll closings by time zone.

From east to west, poll closings (local time) are as follows:

Newfoundland - 7:30pm

Actually the polls in Nfld & Labrador are open until 8:30 local time, which means they close half an hour before the rest of Atlantic Canada.

That's why the blackout period for the Atlantic time zone starts at 8 p.m., while the Maritime Provinces polls are still open.

The NDT blackout period is 8:30 to 11:30 p.m.

Rebecca West wrote:

Posting election results from earlier zones [b]before your region's polls have closed[/b], here on babble, could endanger the site...[emphasis added]

This implies that it may be OK to post results after your region's polls have closed. [b]This is not correct.[/b] The law requires that you not post any results until the polls close in B.C. and Yukon, since Rabble (like the rest of the web) is available to all regardless of time zone.

Television stations in the east don't have to wait until the polls close in B.C. because their broadcast signals can be blacked out in regions where the polls are still open. Rabble can't do that.

You are so right.  Why couldn't the leaders debate been tape delayed?

No, that would be 10 E[b]D[/b]T, [b]11:30[/b] in Nfld.

Are Pacific zone voters discouraged from voting when they learn their favourite party is winning or losing in the "east"? I've never understood how that works. I find it hard to imagine that someone would plausibly say, "I don't need to vote here in Vancouver because Party X has already been declared the winner of the election." Does that mean it's a matter of indifference to B.C.ers in that circumstance as to which party wins in their own local riding?

Yes, I did check my own time zone as you suggested, and I even checked the time zone in Nfld., and found that you were wrong. Would you have preferred that your misinformation remain uncorrected?

And telling me "most voters go by what's happening federally" doesn't even begin to answer my question about the convoluted logic involved in defending the blackout. But never mind, I didn't really expect you would.

Good for you, you must be very proud.   Once again, the geater good overrides the individual desire to do whatever they want for whatever reason they want to.   That's socialism 101.     Not every voter votes for the same reason you or I do, and that has to be respected.  Thats democracy 101.   It might even shift peoples voting patterns to something other than might have first prefered.   Thats poli-sci 101.   Personally I see no harm in making a few people wait abit if it encouraged a better turnout elsewhere and more objective and regionally equitable results.   Neither does the law, as it now stands, which is really all this thread is about.

M. Spector wrote:

Are Pacific zone voters discouraged from voting when they learn their favourite party is winning or losing in the "east"? I've never understood how that works. I find it hard to imagine that someone would plausibly say, "I don't need to vote here in Vancouver because Party X has already been declared the winner of the election."

Really?  You've never understood that?  You find it hard to imagine that?  I'm shocked.

It seems like people have been talking a lot this election about how the reason to vote is to "stop harper".  If Harper has either already won, or already been stopped, then that reason goes away.

I'm not saying that I would then not bother voting--I'm saying my imagination is up to the task of considering how other people might react that way.

Quote:

Does that mean it's a matter of indifference to B.C.ers in that circumstance as to which party wins in their own local riding?

I would bet that the majority of people in BC or Ontario can not name their MP three months after an election is over.

That's an excellent idea NS.  Another potential conflict that could be resolved easily at it source.

What BTW was exactly the Supreme Courts' rational for upholding this, anyone?   I'll check back later when I have time.  

"Even the Supreme Court in their ruling that upheld the restriction in 2000 noted that there was absolutely no evidence which supported the assertion that votes in Western Canada were influenced by results in the East."

Well whatever their reason for deciding to uphold it, it's still a reasonable presumption that should remain default position IMO until good evidence exists that it Doesn't.  Okay?   These kind of things are hard to prove or disprove but lacking decisive evidence one way or another its best to err on the side of caution.   It has after all been a common complaint out West that elections are often decided before we even have a chance to vote and voter participation has been on the decline.   Now I got better things to do than argue over this piffling gripe, like getting my own vote counted. 

Right now on CTV's Power and Politics they're talking about voter turnout, profiling the election, and speculating on vote outcomes.

ETA: Craig Oliver repeated his prediction for a Layton-led minority government "with help from others".

ETA:   CTV reporting NDP getting ready for their biggest celebration ever, while BQ and Libs are looking very downbeat and worried. Cons in Alberta look worried that maybe Harper will not get his majority tonight.

ETA: Jane Tabor predicting that Harper will resign tonight if it looks like Layton will become PM. Both Tabor and Susan Delacourt are predicting a Con minority.

wage zombie wrote:

It seems like people have been talking a lot this election about how the reason to vote is to "stop harper".  If Harper has either already won, or already been stopped, then that reason goes away.

If a voter's only reason for voting is to "stop Harper" when in fact Harper either can't be stopped or has already been stopped, then why should this fact be concealed from him or her?

Or, to put the matter more broadly, who has the right to decide what information a voter should or should not have access to in deciding how (or whether) to cast a vote?

wage zombie wrote:

I would bet that the majority of people in BC or Ontario can not name their MP three months after an election is over.

That may well be so, considering that at least 40% of them don't vote anyway. Is that an affirmative answer to my question?

M. Spector wrote:

Well, which is it? Am I confused or malicious? Or both? If you're going to attack me personally, you might as well make it clear.

If you state something correctly, and then provide an "explanatory statement" that contradicts it, you invite confusion.

Don't post any results until the last of the polls have closed in Beautiful British Columbia. I think that'd be 10 pm Eastern Daylight Time, and 7 pm Pacific Time. Is that right,  Rebecca?

CBC newsworld is going to get spanked... they were broadcasting blacked out results here in Calgary for about 8 minutes before someone realized and cut the feed

tee hee