The Brazilian Superior Electoral Court (TSE) revoked changes introduced to a resolution on election polls. The changes had been criticized by research institutes and associations which believed they could be interpreted as restrictions to the press.
During an administrative session of the court, TSE's president, justice Luiz Fux, stated that the change brought legal uncertainty regarding its reach, which goes against the court's purpose of creating clear transparent rules.
Our duty is to prevent legal questions and uncertainties, said Fux, when he proposed to revoke the changes to the resolution. The court unanimously approved the revocation.
The Electronic Court Gazette at the beginning of the month, published the TSE's decision to add the following paragraph to a resolution carried in December: Questions not related to election matters are forbidden in questionnaires used or to be used in public opinion polls.
The change to such resolution triggered off a reaction from research and demoscopic institutes and associations, which considered the rule highly subjective and, ultimately, likely to censor questions related to the election process, but not necessarily about vote intentions.
For example, voters' approval or disapproval regarding controversial matters would not be included in polls.
However with the elimination of the amendment on reporting election polls, the controversy has been buried.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!
In the name of transparency who lobbied the decision for the changes to be inserted, and what is/was the political affiliation of those individuals, groups?Mar 15th, 2018 - 10:08 am 0
@EricMar 15th, 2018 - 06:15 pm 0
Good question, which at the moment doesn't seem to have any clear answer......but, as poll questions not related to the actual election - i.e., referring to a candidates political record in general (projects presented and approved, or not / coruption issues / prior convictions not necessarily related to corruption etc), might negatively influence the current perception voters have of some candidates (screwing their plans), on the other hand, they might benefit those that have nothing to be ashamed of (not that they would be even if they did have, but nevertheless would prefer to sweep under the carpet), the lobby may have originated from within groups in Congress....just got to ask, who has more to lose when the population is better informed on Congress' chicanery ?
REF: Brazil Electoral Court confirms transparency:Mar 16th, 2018 - 11:33 am 0
As above, they can offer 100% transparency to their hearts' content! In any case, the masses are deaf, dumb, blind, ignorant, retarded, disinterested [ETC] - ANYWAY!