Harvey Newstrom wrote:
>
> In any event, we seem to agree on proper polling procedures and problems.
> We differ only in the intent and severity of the problems. I think we both
> would like to see newscaster not call elections before voting is completed.
>
> (On a different topic, how do we enforce this without more government
> regulations? In a totally free and libertarian society, wouldn't anybody be
> free to poll and publish polling whenever they wanted? Isn't this
> wide-spread freedom in this area what we have now. I'm not sure my desire
> to suppress polling data during an election can be reconciled with
> libertarianism. Damn, no wonder I'm only "medium-core"!)
Well, what I don't understand why, if restricting your ability to yell
fire in a theater is a legally regulatable, that restricting the ability
of the media to bias the election cannot be similarly regulated. Our
right to vote, after all, is the lynchping of our entire system, and
nothing else should be allowed to interfere with the individuals right
to make their own decision. Liberals are always eager to talk about how
the courts are there to ajudicate boundary overlap of different rights.
In this case, the media's free press rights overlap the rights of every
voter to vote equally, unbiased by outside influences outside of
persuation on party platforms, etc. Which is to be considered greater? I
say the right to vote is more important.
On election day, the right to vote should be treated sacrosanctly, with
all others subservient to that imperative for that day.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:40:07 MDT