Election Night Return Question

[Reds4]

I was curious where everyone thinks the place is online to get the fastest state by state election returns on Election day? Is it cnn.com or foxnews.com or which website? I plan on going between the tv and the web on election night, but I like getting on the web so I can check which states I want to check. Where do you all expect to get your info from on returns?

[MODU]

I honestly think the TV will be the quickest, followed by CNN.com. 

HOWEVER - None of the media groups should release any figures until 90% of the votes have been counted and there is a clear winner.  This way, Eastern and Mountain timezone state results won't be available until the Pacific timezone state polls begin to close . . . resulting in less tainting of the election outcome.  Personally, I don't think any poll results, even exit polls, should be made available until all state polls close.

[J-Mann]

Personally, I don't think any poll results, even exit polls, should be made available until all state polls close.

Yes - exactly.  It's fun to watch the state results roll in, but I'd prefer accuracy and steadiness to media sensation.

[Friar]

I don't know if sec of states will have real time results on their websites...

It might be the best option.

I was busy in 2002 and didn't check these sites. Anyone remember how fast their data was?

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

For congressional races, I would recommend CNN.com.  You can follow the races from each congressional district by county, and compare them to the 2002 results by country to make your own projections.   I've never checked the FoxNews election coverage, so I don't know how good their returns are.  CNN will also have up-to-date statewide returns, and probably exit poll results, though I think the broadcast networks have had more accessible exit poll results in the past.

If a state is particularly close, I recommend the Secretary of State website for the particular state...it was much more accurate than the networks in 2000 in Florida.

[elcorazon]

I honestly think the TV will be the quickest, followed by CNN.com. 

HOWEVER - None of the media groups should release any figures until 90% of the votes have been counted and there is a clear winner.  This way, Eastern and Mountain timezone state results won't be available until the Pacific timezone state polls begin to close . . . resulting in less tainting of the election outcome.  Personally, I don't think any poll results, even exit polls, should be made available until all state polls close.

I completely disagree.  People will do what they do.  I really don't care if the media declares Bush the winner on Nov. 1. If the dems can't get out their people to the polls, shame on them.

The media should report ANY data they've got, whenever they deem it newsworthy.

As far as projections go, they should make them when they are SOUND, regardless of the timing.  Obviously, regardless of your political leanings, both projections of FL in 2000 were premature, not because of the status of the polls, but because the data was inconclusive.

That being said, I truly doubt any votes changed because of any premature projections.

[A18]

No votes were changed, but a bunch of Bush voters in the GOP panhandle are on record as having stayed home

[MODU]

I honestly think the TV will be the quickest, followed by CNN.com. 

HOWEVER - None of the media groups should release any figures until 90% of the votes have been counted and there is a clear winner.  This way, Eastern and Mountain timezone state results won't be available until the Pacific timezone state polls begin to close . . . resulting in less tainting of the election outcome.  Personally, I don't think any poll results, even exit polls, should be made available until all state polls close.

I completely disagree.  People will do what they do.  I really don't care if the media declares Bush the winner on Nov. 1. If the dems can't get out their people to the polls, shame on them.

The media should report ANY data they've got, whenever they deem it newsworthy.

As far as projections go, they should make them when they are SOUND, regardless of the timing.  Obviously, regardless of your political leanings, both projections of FL in 2000 were premature, not because of the status of the polls, but because the data was inconclusive.

That being said, I truly doubt any votes changed because of any premature projections.

The only problem with that is people on the West Coast can become disenfranchised.  I lived in Hawaii during two Presidential elections, and believe me when I tell you, people would wait at home to see what the mainland results were looking like before deciding to head out to the polls.  If that information wasn't available, more people on the West would head out to the polls just to ensure their candidate won.  By allowing the media to report the results before other polls close only taints the election process for those on the West.  That is why I'm against it (that, and they screwed up last year declaring states before their polls closed . . . bad media, bad bad bad).

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

No votes were changed, but a bunch of Bush voters in the GOP panhandle are on record as having stayed home

According to the Election Night Timeline, Florida was called at 7:50 Eastern time.  Anyone in the Florida panhandle who was still at home ten minutes before polls closed had no intention of getting to the voting booth before polls closed anyway.

[J. J.]

That still could have been 600-1000 net Bush votes.

[A18]

Not having stayed home. Going back home is what I meant

[elcorazon]

I honestly think the TV will be the quickest, followed by CNN.com. 

HOWEVER - None of the media groups should release any figures until 90% of the votes have been counted and there is a clear winner.  This way, Eastern and Mountain timezone state results won't be available until the Pacific timezone state polls begin to close . . . resulting in less tainting of the election outcome.  Personally, I don't think any poll results, even exit polls, should be made available until all state polls close.

I completely disagree.  People will do what they do.  I really don't care if the media declares Bush the winner on Nov. 1. If the dems can't get out their people to the polls, shame on them.

The media should report ANY data they've got, whenever they deem it newsworthy.

As far as projections go, they should make them when they are SOUND, regardless of the timing.  Obviously, regardless of your political leanings, both projections of FL in 2000 were premature, not because of the status of the polls, but because the data was inconclusive.

That being said, I truly doubt any votes changed because of any premature projections.

The only problem with that is people on the West Coast can become disenfranchised.  I lived in Hawaii during two Presidential elections, and believe me when I tell you, people would wait at home to see what the mainland results were looking like before deciding to head out to the polls.  If that information wasn't available, more people on the West would head out to the polls just to ensure their candidate won.  By allowing the media to report the results before other polls close only taints the election process for those on the West.  That is why I'm against it (that, and they screwed up last year declaring states before their polls closed . . . bad media, bad bad bad).

like I said, shame on them.  If they don't care enough to vote because they don't think their vote matters, that's no different than living in New York where kerry's going to win anyway.  The parties HAVE to rally their troops for the undercard.   If they can't do it, they lose.  It's also no different than when polls show an election will not be close prior to election day.  I'm sorry, I have NO sympathy for people who CHOOSE not to vote because someone claims the election is over before polls in their own state have even closed.

side note:
timeline:  7:50 p.m. TV calls FL for Gore;  If I'm planning on voting, I'm either in line (in which case I have no idea TV stations have called FL for Gore) or I'm on my way to the polls in my car or on foot.  It is "possible" that some were in their cars on their way to vote and heard the "projection" on the radio, and DECIDED not to vote.  They were NOT DISENFRANCHISED.  They CHOSE not to vote.  I really think if they had been serious about voting they would have either voted earlier, or voted anyway.  Obviously they had ZERO interest in ANY other race on the ballot, and cared little enough about the presidential election to cut it quite close anyway.  TOO BAD, I say.

Besides, I WANT to KNOW who won as SOON as possible.

[khirkhib]

Yeah I agree with you.  If people in the panhandle didn't vote they probably just use the media as an excuse and it isn't like the Presidential race is the only thing on the ballot.  Don't weep for those that don't choose to vote fight for those that are prevented from voting.

[IowaLibert]

I'm going to come down on the side of those who want the news ASAP.

The clincher for me was considering voting in New York which is safely Kerry's. So? Vote anyway. Vote the rest of the ballot. If you can't be bothered because the POTUS race (in your state or nationally) is over, then it's your loss. You either care or you don't.

I do want to go back though and say that I'm on their side, but I dont' particularly care how quickly I get the results. For me, it's more important that we get accurate results than fast results. If (big if) you could guarantee me 90% fewer errors by a process that added 2 days to the counting process, then I'd gladly wait.

[Silent Hunter]

What time should we know one way or another?

Perhaps no results should be announced until all polls are closed.

[MODU]

Perhaps no results should be announced until all polls are closed.

Another enlightened soul.