Tuesday, November 07, 2006

Early Election Results Coverage

should be banned.

That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it.

The results are inaccurate and often so premature as to be absolutely useless. Oh, it gives the countless talking heads something easy to discuss, but come on.

There is no way this premature "results reporting" doesn't effect voter turnout.

If you have worked a full day, and you are on your way to the voting booths, and you hear that the race is 73% in favor of the guy you are opposed to...why wouldn't you think, "Oh, what's the use?"

Because perhaps you don't see the little number on the top of the screen that says 0% results in.

That's right. As I write this, MSNBC is reporting preliminary results with -- statistically speaking -- ZERO PERCENT OF VOTES COUNTED.

I find this practice at best shameful and at worst?

17 comments:

  1. It sucks being in California when you haven't voted yet and they are already projecting national winners.

    ReplyDelete
  2. 0%? I hadn't seen that one. They called a winner in the US senate race in our state with only 30% reporting. It seems to me that there is always a possibility that the other 70% all voted for the other guy. Unlikely? Maybe. But possible? Yes.

    ReplyDelete
  3. amen!
    hate when reporters have nothing else to say so they simply make asshole predictions. perhaps all the new congress folks can pass a law regarding news reporting. yeah, that's the ticket.

    ps...congrats on the new job...yay, you!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Our local paper had a banner headline, "The Winner Is..." a full week before the election. The story went on to predict the winner of our gubernatorial race. Yep, good, responsible journalism right there.

    ReplyDelete
  5. yeah, i screamed at the tv about that, too. it pissed me off even more 2 years ago when they were doing that with the presidential election. With, like, 1% of the votes in. Grrr...
    makes you wonder if they ever count the absentee ballots, doesn't it?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Yes, I totally agree that the early election results are ridiculous. Even not being good at math, I can tell that when they predict the winner and only 22% of the votes counted, well, that's ridiculous.

    Sadly, I remember when early election results predicted that Al Gore won Florida.

    ReplyDelete
  7. fluffycat -- Al Gore did win Florida. ;)

    ReplyDelete
  8. It's like voting on whether or not you'll dump a guy before the first date is over.

    Actually, that one usually works, so I'm guessing it must be like something else.

    I'll keep thinking.

    Yay for voting!

    ReplyDelete
  9. Are you somewhere doing a dance of joy right now, though?

    I can't believe the news was even beter when I got up this morning!

    ReplyDelete
  10. Now, I voted. But let me play devil's advocate for a second.

    Four congressional districts touch the island of Manhattan. If any of them have ever been carried by a republican, it would be news to me. My congressman (Nadler) just won term number 8 by an 85-15% margin or something similar. The guy from the district over is a 12 term congressman. He won 93-7%. One of the other guys ran unopposed. I tried to look up the republican opponents in Manhattan, none of them have websites, most don't have phone numbers you can call. I couldn't even find pictures or bios.

    I voted because I love my country and I think it's important, but really, where I live, you would have a very hard time making an argument that your individual vote is important in any serious way. This is borne out by the actual voting statistics. I'll be conservative and say 1 million people live in my district (I think it's probably closer to 2 million). 200,000 people voted in the congressional election. Total.

    Do with all of this what you will.

    ReplyDelete
  11. You know what other thing that should be banned? Riders. Adding the act that made online poker illegal to the Port Security Act. They have nothing to do with each other. Each bill should pass on it's own merits. But, obviously, it does not work that way.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Yeah, calling races based on polling really creeps me out. It doesn't matter what they say on the way out, what matters is what they ACTUALLY VOTED. Plus, no one's ever exit polled me.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I agree completely. There was one race my local news was reporting on last night where the percentage in was -1%. Yes, that's right. NEGATIVE ONE PERCENT. I am hoping it was just a typo. But even if a whole positive one percent is reporting, I am pretty sure they have no idea who will win.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I loved the Jon Stewart/Steven Colbert "Midterm Midtacular". They did a gag on entrance polling as opposed to exit polling 'cause that way they could disseminate the info even faster!

    Laughed my fool head off at that.

    We'll see what the next 2 years brings.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Thought you were supposed to post everyday!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  16. I agree, but it would be SO HARD! Imagine if we had to wait for every vote to be counted ... since provisional and absentee votes can take weeks to count, we'd all be dying with anticipation!

    Although, I guess all Americans could use a lesson or two in patience.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I have to disagree with you here. If people are stupid enough to forego voting because it won't matter, they get the government they deserve. Especially in the last eight years or so when it's been shown that a mere two hundred votes can swing an election one way or the other.

    ReplyDelete