[SimeyTheLimey]

Here's something that we heard a lot about in 2000, but which I haven't heard about this cycle at all. After the 2000 vote there was a lot of discussion about whether the media had accidentally impacted the election by prematurely posting exit poll results while the voting was still going on.

After the election, there was talk about the media should have new rules preventing this. Does anyone know how that ended up? How should it end up?

I feel kind of torn here because I would like this election over and the result declared yesterday, if not sooner. On the other hand, I want as pure an election as possible.

[mo]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Here's something that we heard a lot about in 2000, but which I haven't heard about this cycle at all. After the 2000 vote there was a lot of discussion about whether the media had accidentally impacted the election by prematurely posting exit poll results while the voting was still going on.

After the election, there was talk about the media should have new rules preventing this. Does anyone know how that ended up? How should it end up?

I feel kind of torn here because I would like this election over and the result declared yesterday, if not sooner. On the other hand, I want as pure an election as possible.

My understanding is that now that Voter News Service, the network pooled resource that had so much trouble in 2000, is kaput, the networks and the AP have formed another entity called the National Election Pool, and they will report exit polling data next Tuesday. Each news organization will take the data provided by the pool and decide on its own what to do with it, and they have agreed not to call state races before the polls in that state closes, even if the state spans a time zone. Of course, Californians still could hear the election called by a network before the polls in their state are closed.

[icruise]

Is there any real reason why exit poll results have to be reported before the polls close in that state? Seems to me that it would be best just to keep mum until the voting ends.

[ThinkInsane]

This was the topic on Talk of the Nation yesterday. NPR should have a link. It was pretty interesting, you should give it a listen. It describes in detail what the procedure will be this year.

[BRussell]

I was just posting in another thread how it makes me sick thinking about what could happen this time. It seems like virtually nothing has changed since last time. Maybe if things screw up this time people will actually really be motivated to improve the system. And I think the exit polls are the least of the potential problems. We need a complete, nation-wide election overhaul.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by Icruise:
Is there any real reason why exit poll results have to be reported before the polls close in that state? Seems to me that it would be best just to keep mum until the voting ends.

I think that's the intention, but there was an issue in Florida last time because the polls close later in the panhandle because it goes into the Central Time zone. Florida was called for Gore an hour before all the polls had closed there.

[mitchell_pgh]

Yah, I think they shouldn't be able to post exit polls until after the polls have closed (or say exactly when the polls close).

The last thing I would like to see is someone say "oh well, I won't bother..." when their state is a landslide.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Thanks to everyone for the answers. This stuff does worry me. On the other hand, the 2000 election was pretty unusual. The procedures were basically the same in several elections beforehand, and nobody supposed that elections are fundamentally unreliable in 96, 92, 88, 84, and so on.

I think it is natural that we are all jittery because of last time. Hopefully, this election will show that was something of a fluke.

However, I don't see any valid reason for exit polling. Not that it is illegal (first amendment), but I think the press has a responsibilty here.

[itai195]

The difference is that those 4 elections weren't very close. 84 was a landslide and the other three all had an average margin of victory of 7 million votes. This kind of thing only makes a significant difference in close elections. That's why this year has been such an enigma -- the election is too close to call and all the generally insignificant, unknown factors loom large.

I agree that there is no valid reason for exit polling. It's a product of our desire for instant gratification, but as a Californian (imagine how Hawaians must feel!) it's kind of discouraging to know the results before you even head to the polls.

[vmpaul]

IMO, I think it's a classic case case of the tale wagging the dog. Why are we so intent on giving the networks results on elections that are aren't fully concluded?

Sure, the public has a right to know but are we being served by the media's incessant need to scoop one another even without conclusive results? I don't see why waiting till a reasonable time after a full count has been conducted is bad.

I would ban exit polling altogether. There's no legal reason why it needs to exist and it interferers, I believe, in the whole process.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
I would ban exit polling altogether. There's no legal reason why it needs to exist and it interferers, I believe, in the whole process.

Not that I am any kind of expert on campaign law, but I think there could be a First Amendment problem with banning it. All that exit polls are is people talking to people about what they did, and then the media reporting it. That's quite likely all constitutionally protected.

That's why I think it is best to argue for voluntary self-policing.

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Not that I am any kind of expert on campaign law, but I think there could be a First Amendment problem with banning it. All that exit polls are is people talking to people about what they did, and then the media reporting it. That's quite likely all constitutionally protected.

That's why I think it is best to argue for voluntary self-policing.

True, but you could make it harder for them to do. Designate areas around polling places that are off-limits to that action. Could it be compared to those laws that prohibit panhandling around ATM's or laws preventing scalping around entertainment events? Or is it strictly 1st Amendment stuff that shouldn't be touched?

Have you ever been exit-polled? (hope you don't take that as bad as it sounds). I haven't. I'm wondering if they canvas people in line to vote, or do they catch you in the parking lot, or if it's done by phone?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
True, but you could make it harder for them to do. Designate areas around polling places that are off-limits to that action. Could it be compared to those laws that prohibit panhandling around ATM's or laws preventing scalping around entertainment events? Or is it strictly 1st Amendment stuff that shouldn't be touched?

Have you ever been exit-polled? (hope you don't take that as bad as it sounds). I haven't. I'm wondering if they canvas people in line to vote, or do they catch you in the parking lot, or if it's done by phone?

My guess is you could probably do what you suggest. Most (if not all) states ban political activity within a certain distance of a polling place. There isn't any First Amendment problem there. But there probably would be a problem with a ban just reporting the results.

I've never been exit polled. The only states I have voted in person in are VA, DC, and Md. I think they are each so safe that exit pollsters don't bother.

[mo]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:

I've never been exit polled. The only states I have voted in person in are VA, DC, and Md. I think they are each so safe that exit pollsters don't bother.

Yeah, but you have to remember that the polling firms are interested in compiling aggregates that don't necessary have to do with predicting the outcome, but rather, explaining it. You know: How did suburban white women vote, how did homeowners vote, how did gunowners vote, etc. So exit polls get conducted all over the place.

Not to risk derailing the thread, but the discussion sort of makes me wonder: I heard a lot of people dismissing -- and sometimes, mocking -- the complaints of people who couldn't figure out the butterfly ballot or go to the correct pollling place. I agreed with the argument that there was nothing that could be done post-election for people who mismarked their ballots.

But given that, why should I have an ounce of sympathy for somebody who sees an exit poll on TV and then decides not to vote at all? Isn't it their problem that they're so easy to discourage? If the rest of the races and issues on the ballot are so uninteresting to them, should I mourn the fact that they decided to take a powder? Just asking.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by mo:
But given that, why should I have an ounce of sympathy for somebody who sees an exit poll on TV and then decides not to vote at all? Isn't it their problem that they're so easy to discourage?

How do you square this with the DNC line about Republican challengers in Ohio out to intimidate voters? Isn't it their problem also if they are easy to discourage?

Perhaps you don't square them. If not, I agree with you that voters probably aren't all that easy to discourage if they feel that their vote isn't completely futile. I suppose it is a perception of futility that makes it possible for a media report that the election is over to discourage voters.

Otherwise, I agree with you that voters are responsible for their actions. If they don't bother to vote, it's on them. If they screw up the instructions, that's on them. If they vote "Libertarian" thinking they are voting for "Lieberman," that is also on them.

Anyway, I have still never seen an exit pollster when I have been voting. Has anyone ever seen one? How do we know they really exist? Maybe it is really like that Asimov(?) story where the entire election is polled by a supercomputer extrapolating from one carefully-selected "average" voter?

[mo]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
How do you square this with the DNC line about Republican challengers in Ohio out to intimidate voters? Isn't it their problem also if they are easy to discourage?

Perhaps you don't square them. If not, I agree with you that voters probably aren't all that easy to discourage if they feel that their vote isn't completely futile. I suppose it is a perception of futility that makes it possible for a media report that the election is over to discourage voters.

Otherwise, I agree with you that voters are responsible for their actions. If they don't bother to vote, it's on them. If they screw up the instructions, that's on them. If they vote "Libertarian" thinking they are voting for "Lieberman," that is also on them.

Anyway, I have still never seen an exit pollster when I have been voting. Has anyone ever seen one? How do we know they really exist? Maybe it is really like that Asimov(?) story where the entire election is polled by a supercomputer extrapolating from one carefully-selected "average" voter?

I don't try to square anything -- not the DNC's charges of intimidation, nor the RNC's accusations of fraud, both of which, mind you, are being made before elections have actually taken place. It's not my job to back up their accusations -- I don't work for either of them. Thankfully.

I gotta break the news to you: I have been exit polled here in Missouri, back in 2000, by somebody from the AP. I live in a precinct that voted overwhelmingly for Gore, in a county that went very strongly for Gore. And I did indeed vote for Gore, also.

Naturally, I told them that I voted for Bush. And if you are ever exit-polled, I humbly suggest you take the same approach.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by mo:
I don't try to square anything -- not the DNC's charges of intimidation, nor the RNC's accusations of fraud, both of which, mind you, are being made before elections have actually taken place. It's not my job to back up their accusations

Fair enough.

Naturally, I told them that I voted for Bush. And if you are ever exit-polled, I humbly suggest you take the same approach.

Lol!

The Northern Virginia way is to just scowl at people. Especially because I will be voting very early in the morning before a usually ugly commute.

[jojo gunne]

just say nader

[xi_hyperon]

Here is the link to the Talk of the Nation broadcast on this topic. I heard it when it was on a couple of days ago, and it was interesting.

[Saad]

Originally posted by ThinkInsane:
This was the topic on Talk of the Nation yesterday. NPR should have a link. It was pretty interesting, you should give it a listen. It describes in detail what the procedure will be this year.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=1113720

[xi_hyperon]

Originally posted by Saad:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=1113720

Just to clarify - the link you posted is from their broadcast in 2000. The one ThinkInsane referred to is from earlier this week (see my previous post for link).

[zigzag]

I don't mean to derail the thread, but could this be another reason for skepticism about the electoral system? If you live out west and hear that Florida and Ohio have already been decided, your incentive to vote is rather diminished. Of course, there are local elections as well, but I suspect that it's the Presidential election that motivates most people.

Again, I just wanted to share the thought and don't mean to turn this into a generalized electoral system argument.

[MATTRESS]

I think that national results and exit polls should not be allowed to be posted until ALL voting is completed nationwide. If this means waiting until Wednesday morning to know the results then so be it.

[clarkgoble]

Wouldn't it be funny if the election ended up being decided by Hawaii? (Which amazingly has been leaning Bush -- I thought Hawaii was a Democrat stronghold) It could happen. A lot of the electorial maps I've been visiting have Bush pulling ahead in Florida while Ohio in now Kerry's. Iowa and potentially Pennsylvania may now be the big deciders. (Although I just can't see Bush taking Penn.)

Either way I hope whomever wins wins big enough to avoid the problems of 2000. We just can't handle that during a war. Further that Al Queda warning really scares me.

BTW - George Stephanopolas (sp?) said on NPR today that exit polling in Florida have Kerry ahead by 10. I don't know what the exit polling is, although he said that more than 30% of the state has voted. How do you exit poll mail in ballots, though?

[Saad]

Originally posted by clarkgoble:
Wouldn't it be funny if the election ended up being decided by Hawaii? (Which amazingly has been leaning Bush -- I thought Hawaii was a Democrat stronghold) It could happen. A lot of the electorial maps I've been visiting have Bush pulling ahead in Florida while Ohio in now Kerry's. Iowa and potentially Pennsylvania may now be the big deciders. (Although I just can't see Bush taking Penn.)

Either way I hope whomever wins wins big enough to avoid the problems of 2000. We just can't handle that during a war. Further that Al Queda warning really scares me.

BTW - George Stephanopolas (sp?) said on NPR today that exit polling in Florida have Kerry ahead by 10. I don't know what the exit polling is, although he said that more than 30% of the state has voted. How do you exit poll mail in ballots, though?

They might have been referring to early voting, which is done in person.

[icruise]

Originally posted by clarkgoble:

BTW - George Stephanopolas (sp?) said on NPR today that exit polling in Florida have Kerry ahead by 10. I don't know what the exit polling is, although he said that more than 30% of the state has voted. How do you exit poll mail in ballots, though?

People are voting early, not just mailing in their ballots.

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by clarkgoble:


Either way I hope whomever wins wins big enough to avoid the problems of 2000. We just can't handle that during a war. Further that Al Queda warning really scares me.

The other side of that is if there isn't a major problem it may never get fixed. It may never get fixed even IF there's a major problem this time. So who knows?

Not that I'm wishing for a close race. It's just that things never seem to get better until they get really bad.