Every time the alleged "electoral silence" is announced in accordance with the law, a heated discussion begins on the relevance and legitimacy of these provisions. As usual, in specified ritualistic disputes practically only be two fighting camps. any say that “electoral silence” is simply a full nonsense, especially in the net era, others are convinced that this is simply a essential time for reflection. The paradox of competing arguments is that both are legitimate and not necessarily entirely excluded.
Surely the voter is attacked by promises, assurances, visions and fears of political competition everywhere, and in specified conditions it seems very hard to make a rational decision. On the another hand, for purely method reasons, it is impossible to follow the rules orthodoxly, for example, due to the fact that all net user can easy reproduce any material from polls, through debates, to pamphlets. This is no different in public space, due to the fact that in these 2 days billboards hung on buildings and posters on fences have not disappeared. It is not uncommon for a citizen to see suspended agitation material on the way to the polling place before voting, which in explanation should not happen.
So what is allowed and not allowed to do? The rules in explanation are unambiguous, but in practice they may be indeterminate or even impracticable. 2 articles of the Electoral Code mention to the ‘election silence’:
Article 107.
§ 1. On the day of the vote and 24 hours before that day, the conduct of electoral agitations, including convocation of assemblies, the organisation of incomes and manifestations, the presentation of speeches and the dissemination of election materials, is prohibited.
§ 2. Electoral agitation in the polling station and in the building in which it is located is prohibited.
Article 115. [Prohibition to make public the results of pre-election surveys (selections) to the public]
§ 1. 24 hours before the day of the vote, until the end of the vote, it shall be prohibited to make public the results of pre-election surveys (selection polls) to the public concerning the anticipated electoral behaviours and election results and the results of polls carried out on the day of the vote.
§ 2. The provision § 1 shall apply in the territory of the Republic of Poland.
From the articles cited above, it is clear that agitation is prohibited, that is, to encourage or discourage voting for a peculiar candidate or party. It is besides certain that polls must not be published, and precisely for breaking this provision are threatening these legendary multimillion-dollar penalties. Apart from the rules, there is besides an interpretation, and here each lawyer has his ‘holy convictions’, among another things so absurd that liking the entry of politics on social networks is simply a breach of ‘election silence’. At the same time, the same lawyers do not announcement that agitation materials do not vanish from the net and public space during the regulations and are so liked or hated.
Others in writing effort to preach balanced interpretations and only evident cases, specified as organizing demonstrations or campaigning online for 1 candidate, consider it violation. With respect to the polls, there is besides a large misunderstanding, namely that Kowalski's forecasts even supported by percent results are evidently not a survey. So if Kowalski writes online that he is voting for candidate X and in his opinion this candidate will receive 35%, then in the light of the electoral code, he does not violate the law. The rules on "election silence" are rather clear and rational, but as usual, a small sick will is adequate and you can compose precisely the other doctrine with the same case law.
We don't believe in anyone, we don't believe in anything! We look at facts and draw conclusions!
