IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cpp/issued/v29y2003i3p367-371.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comment/Commentaire The 2000 Election and the New Elections Act Poll Reporting Provisions: Contra Professor Durand, the Law Has Merit

Author

Listed:
  • Cristine de Clercy
  • Peter A. Ferguson

Abstract

During the 2000 Canadian election, new regulations governing the dissemination of methodological information about opinion polls became effective. The new requirements of sections 326, 327, and 328 transformed a laissez-faire environment into a regulated one. Proponents of such laws argue they improve the quality of information disseminated to citizens by polling firms and the media. We test this proposition by comparing opinion poll reportage in Canada across the last two national elections. Whereas Professor Durand finds little justification for the new law, our study suggests it has merit.

Suggested Citation

  • Cristine de Clercy & Peter A. Ferguson, 2003. "Comment/Commentaire The 2000 Election and the New Elections Act Poll Reporting Provisions: Contra Professor Durand, the Law Has Merit," Canadian Public Policy, University of Toronto Press, vol. 29(3), pages 367-371, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:cpp:issued:v:29:y:2003:i:3:p:367-371
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0317-0861%28200309%2929%3A3%3C367%3AT2EATN%3E2.0.CO%3B2-6
    Download Restriction: only available to JSTOR subscribers
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Tania Gosselin & François Pétry, 2009. "The Regulation of Poll Reporting in Canada," Canadian Public Policy, University of Toronto Press, vol. 35(1), pages 41-57, March.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cpp:issued:v:29:y:2003:i:3:p:367-371. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Iver Chong (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.utpjournals.press/loi/cpp .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.