Is there really any point to banning tweets on election day?

To post in this sub-forum you must have made 100 posts or have Trust status or have completed our ID Verification

Forums › Politics › Is there really any point to banning tweets on election day?

1 | 2 | 3

Mad Scientist
30014 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6217

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1168568 4-Nov-2014 15:25

i think it should be as level as possible

banning tweets as your are about to vote is a good idea

but how do you police the ends of the internet unless you're with vodafone?

and people vote for a whole week before election day anyway, so ... maybe that needs to go too

turnin

509 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 155
Inactive user

#1168569 4-Nov-2014 15:26

But why the big fuss about election day " advertising" when the media both promote and discredit parties for months prior, it's not like people have 1 day memories

markl

348 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 83

#1168586 4-Nov-2014 15:36

joker97: i think it should be as level as possible

banning tweets as your are about to vote is a good idea

but how do you police the ends of the internet unless you're with vodafone?

and people vote for a whole week before election day anyway, so ... maybe that needs to go too

Yeah, back on topic.... :)

Personally, I think that the rule is a bit daft. People who are likely to be swayed at the last minute must surely be in the absolute minority, and were probably as likely to vote according to the number of letters in each candidate's name, or according to their position on the ballot paper.

I'd suggest that they need to either remove the restriction completely, or ban electoral advertising, campaigning, etc. for the entire period that polls are open. How else can you be consistent.

As for the Electoral Commission having "no option" but to report people to the Police when they find a breach of the law, that is ridiculous also. Israel Dagg saying "go National" is hardly a concerted attempt to sway people's votes is it? Surely the idea behind the law is to stop the protagonists themselves (i.e. the parties and the candidates up for election) from unduly influencing voters at the last minute...seems to me that there is a case of "it's against the letter of the law, but not the spirit". Given that, the police are unlikely to prosecute any of the alleged offenders, which means the whole thing has been a colossal waste of Police time. Time they would be better off spending on more pressing matters...

ckc

321 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 100
Inactive user

#1168601 4-Nov-2014 15:56

markl:
joker97: i think it should be as level as possible

banning tweets as your are about to vote is a good idea

but how do you police the ends of the internet unless you're with vodafone?

and people vote for a whole week before election day anyway, so ... maybe that needs to go too

Yeah, back on topic.... :)

Personally, I think that the rule is a bit daft. People who are likely to be swayed at the last minute must surely be in the absolute minority, and were probably as likely to vote according to the number of letters in each candidate's name, or according to their position on the ballot paper.

I'd suggest that they need to either remove the restriction completely, or ban electoral advertising, campaigning, etc. for the entire period that polls are open. How else can you be consistent.

As for the Electoral Commission having "no option" but to report people to the Police when they find a breach of the law, that is ridiculous also. Israel Dagg saying "go National" is hardly a concerted attempt to sway people's votes is it? Surely the idea behind the law is to stop the protagonists themselves (i.e. the parties and the candidates up for election) from unduly influencing voters at the last minute...seems to me that there is a case of "it's against the letter of the law, but not the spirit". Given that, the police are unlikely to prosecute any of the alleged offenders, which means the whole thing has been a colossal waste of Police time. Time they would be better off spending on more pressing matters...

Well, if sports stars recommending products didn't have an influence, then companies wouldn't spend hundreds of millions a year trying to get the biggest names to endorse their products. This isn't just Ronaldo and Rooney advertising for Nike, this is everything. This is the Silver Ferns being in New World ads, it's having an official All Blacks deodorant and an official pain relief gel. It's Richie McCaw advertising houses, and it's Mahe Drysdale telling me what I should be feeding my cat.

If none of this had an influence, they wouldn't be spending millions researching it and 100 times that actually paying out and doing it. Who knows, given the stuff they had about Dirty Politics before the election and all that underground crap that went on undermining people through third parties, who's to say that parties don't have similar positive campaigns going on with influential figures being encouraged to make public statements in support of John Key?

That's what it's supposed to stop.

But given that I voted two weeks before the election, it was pointless. You either get rid of early voting or you get rid of the law forbidding "influence". I'd prefer the latter, because I don't think the population is actually stupid, and then we could have proper exit polls, and all that time and money spent policing the media and policing the internet could be spent elsewhere.

markl

348 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 83

#1168608 4-Nov-2014 16:13

ckc: If none of this had an influence, they wouldn't be spending millions researching it and 100 times that actually paying out and doing it. Who knows, given the stuff they had about Dirty Politics before the election and all that underground crap that went on undermining people through third parties, who's to say that parties don't have similar positive campaigns going on with influential figures being encouraged to make public statements in support of John Key?

That's what it's supposed to stop.

But given that I voted two weeks before the election, it was pointless. You either get rid of early voting or you get rid of the law forbidding "influence". I'd prefer the latter, because I don't think the population is actually stupid, and then we could have proper exit polls, and all that time and money spent policing the media and policing the internet could be spent elsewhere.

Yes, well, a couple of flippant off the cuff "go team!" tweets doesn't add up to a concerted campaign for the hearts and minds of the drones does it? There was no such campaign, and anyone who thinks there was is utterly, undeniably, certifiably paranoid in the extreme.

I agree with you, for the record - dump this idiotic law and actually trust people to think for themsleves. As I said earlier, the number of people who would be influenced by a tweet by an All Black on election day must surely be insignificant.

Geektastic

18009 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8465

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1168615 4-Nov-2014 16:25

turnin: The purpose of banning tweets is to stop others influencing your vote. Its amazing that for a good 4 months prior everyone conveniently fails to notice the media do exactly that.

Well, this is sort of my point: it seems futile to operate on the frankly foolish belief that what happens on the day you put your cross on the page is significantly more likely to make you behave in a way you did not intend to than endless blathering for months before.

Geekzone

Want to support Geekzone and browse the site without the ads? Subscribe to Geekzone now (monthly, annual and lifetime options).

Geektastic

18009 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8465

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1168620 4-Nov-2014 16:28

ckc:
markl:
joker97: i think it should be as level as possible

banning tweets as your are about to vote is a good idea

but how do you police the ends of the internet unless you're with vodafone?

and people vote for a whole week before election day anyway, so ... maybe that needs to go too

Yeah, back on topic.... :)

Personally, I think that the rule is a bit daft. People who are likely to be swayed at the last minute must surely be in the absolute minority, and were probably as likely to vote according to the number of letters in each candidate's name, or according to their position on the ballot paper.

I'd suggest that they need to either remove the restriction completely, or ban electoral advertising, campaigning, etc. for the entire period that polls are open. How else can you be consistent.

As for the Electoral Commission having "no option" but to report people to the Police when they find a breach of the law, that is ridiculous also. Israel Dagg saying "go National" is hardly a concerted attempt to sway people's votes is it? Surely the idea behind the law is to stop the protagonists themselves (i.e. the parties and the candidates up for election) from unduly influencing voters at the last minute...seems to me that there is a case of "it's against the letter of the law, but not the spirit". Given that, the police are unlikely to prosecute any of the alleged offenders, which means the whole thing has been a colossal waste of Police time. Time they would be better off spending on more pressing matters...

Well, if sports stars recommending products didn't have an influence, then companies wouldn't spend hundreds of millions a year trying to get the biggest names to endorse their products. This isn't just Ronaldo and Rooney advertising for Nike, this is everything. This is the Silver Ferns being in New World ads, it's having an official All Blacks deodorant and an official pain relief gel. It's Richie McCaw advertising houses, and it's Mahe Drysdale telling me what I should be feeding my cat.

If none of this had an influence, they wouldn't be spending millions researching it and 100 times that actually paying out and doing it. Who knows, given the stuff they had about Dirty Politics before the election and all that underground crap that went on undermining people through third parties, who's to say that parties don't have similar positive campaigns going on with influential figures being encouraged to make public statements in support of John Key?

That's what it's supposed to stop.

But given that I voted two weeks before the election, it was pointless. You either get rid of early voting or you get rid of the law forbidding "influence". I'd prefer the latter, because I don't think the population is actually stupid, and then we could have proper exit polls, and all that time and money spent policing the media and policing the internet could be spent elsewhere.

I'm still waiting for the Official All Blacks Toilet Paper....

As someone who finds sport as interesting as root canal therapy, the endorsement of over-paid ball kickers etc is more likely to make sure I never buy the product!

richms

29104 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10222

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1168661 4-Nov-2014 17:19

IMO its a major violation of free speech to even think about limiting my ability to tweet on election day. Its a hasbeen law that should go.

I do appreciate its effect on official party advertising, without it the ugly hordings would never get taken down, but IMO restricting those things outright is a better solution.

Richard rich.ms

Jase2985

13735 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6216

ID Verified

Lifetime subscriber

#1168669 4-Nov-2014 17:27

afe66: Election day should remain advertising free.

I as an individual am not allowed to go round and hand out fliers telling people how to vote or that I'm mates with prime minister.

Twitter posting is the same thing, argueably more powerful in that some famous people have very large followers , more so than would listen to a radio ad.

but you can do all that in the weeks up to the election when you are still able to vote? why is that any different? why not ban advertising and tweets when the advanced voting opens? you could sway someones decision there?

afe66

3181 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1678

Lifetime subscriber

#1168701 4-Nov-2014 17:56

Banning advertising on day of the election would reduce the chances of ambush smearing, making it diffiuclt for the opposing politician to counter or journalist to investigate.

Your question about why banning advertisements earlier is tempered a little by you dont have to vote earlier.

The discussion has two aspects.

One, is twitter announcements to large numbers of people "Advertising" as banned by the law - Id say yes, look at the money being used in product placement.

Two, Should we ban advertising on day of the election, - Id say yes again but thats a different question.

A.

afe66

3181 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1678

Lifetime subscriber

#1168703 4-Nov-2014 17:59

KiwiNZ:
I can think of an AllBlack Captain that is a Rhodes Scholar, a current that is a Lawyer, another with one degree and completing a second.... thats just off the top of my head

Yes but we can also come up with more who are drunks, beat their wives, run dodgy businesses.

A.

Geekzone support

Support Geekzone with one-off or recurring donations Donate via PressPatron.

Geektastic

18009 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8465

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1168710 4-Nov-2014 18:10

"This voting paper is sponsored by Steinlager Pure: vote responsibly!".....

Jase2985

13735 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6216

ID Verified

Lifetime subscriber

#1168827 4-Nov-2014 20:38

afe66: Banning advertising on day of the election would reduce the chances of ambush smearing, making it diffiuclt for the opposing politician to counter or journalist to investigate.

Your question about why banning advertisements earlier is tempered a little by you dont have to vote earlier.

The discussion has two aspects.

you dont have to vote on election day either :)

saeran

139 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 18

#1169425 5-Nov-2014 17:32

At the end of the day – even with the high early voting numbers – most people vote on election day, and it's important they aren't swayed at the last minute.

I've written about this here: http://www.beehivemandate.co.nz/comment/all-black-election-day-tweets-unacceptable/

nathan

5695 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1630
Inactive user

#1169434 5-Nov-2014 17:51

If publications are banned, like they are now, twitter should be included as it is now

The rule I would like to see added is no reporting of election polls 2-4 weeks before election day

1 | 2 | 3