I have thought to myself, more than once, "Wouldn’t it be neat to have election vote counts on election day in real time?" As a blogger I could post them, and we could discuss them in comments. That possibility is here. Do you think that is a good idea?
For decades, news organizations have refrained from releasing early results in presidential battleground states on Election Day, adhering to a strict, time-honored embargo until a majority of polls there have closed.
Now, a group of data scientists, journalists and Silicon Valley entrepreneurs is seeking to upend that reporting tradition, providing detailed projections of who is winning at any given time on Election Day in key swing states, and updating the information in real time from dawn to dusk.
The plan is likely to cause a stir among those involved in reporting election results and in political circles, who worry about both accuracy and an adverse effect on how people vote. Previous early calls in presidential races have prompted congressional inquiries.
The company spearheading the effort, VoteCastr, plans real-time projections of presidential and Senate races in Colorado, Florida, Nevada, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. It plans to publish a map and tables of its projected results on Slate, the online newsmagazine… [emphasis added]
From <NY Times>
Now that it’s real, I oppose it and think it would be very bad for liberals in downballot races and for progressive outcomes on ballot measures. Lefties tend to get lazy. I can see thousands of voters staying home in western states, if the presidential race was already settled. Sadly, all it tales is one ballot measure that would effect whether or not Republicans can deny others’ Constitutional rights, or that helps make Republican Supply-side pseudo-Christianity (the opposite of authentic Christianity) the de facto state religion, and goose-stepping sheeple will infest the polls like a plague. I think this would make presidential election years more like midterms.
14 Responses to “On Election Day Projections”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
While I consider it immoral to let one's vote be influenced by how other people are voting, as opposed to one's own informed (at least as much as possible) consideration about what solution is best, be it candidate or issue, I realize I am in a put-upon minority here. Way, way too many people woud be swayed by this. I would also point out that you say "if the Presidential race was already settled." Even if additional votes did not change the outcome of a Presidential race, they could substantially change the mandate. And, frankly, we need a mandate. A landslide would not be too much by any means.
A BLUE (democratic) landslide!
I have to agree with you TC. I can see people shrugging and saying "why bother' if she's going to win anyway"? Or as you say ballot measures which could be decided by 'Trumpees'. Not good at all. That's why I am an advocate for early voting or voting by mail. Barry and I have voted by mail for years. We will be casting our votes next month. I have gone online and checked and all of my votes have been received, so I have no problem with it. Barry does always mail our ballots directly from the post office which I think is best.
Thanks, Tom for this.
I agree with you. If results were published early, some in states that had not voted might decide they didn't need to vote, and this would seriously affect the results.
I think you're spot on, TomCat. Remember that these are only forecasts, and as we know from (exit) polls around the world, they are often very bad predictors. There's also no way of assessing the correctness or the impartiality of those "forecasts" as they come out. There's too much at stake here and ,as Joanne is right to point out, it's wrong to let one's vote depend on how other people have voted. That's not what democracy and voting rights are about.
This call sounds very much like an advertisement for another product these data scientists, journalists and Silicon Valley entrepreneurs have developed for a niche in the market of their own making. I hope they won't be allowed to go through with it, for the sake of American democracy which is under so much pressure as it is.
Lone, these are something more. Data from voting machines is updated publicly in real time.
While I don't care for the idea either, I suspect the saving grace is that people who are motivated enough to learn about the site to visit it are probably enough of a "political junkie" to get out and vote no matter what.
I doubt it would have many incidental "drive-by" visitors that might be influenced by how the vote is trending.
I see your point – but that's assuming the media doesn't get hold of it and start broadcasting.
JD beat me to it. Now folks have to go to Slate, but if this takes off, even broadcast media will be using it.
In Canada, this is the regulation for reporting results of federal elections: https://www.sfu.ca/~aheard/elections/laws.html
Where once we abstained from election results reporting on an honour system, that was codified into law in 2000 under Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, Liberal. And as you can see, the Supreme Court of Canada upheld the law.
I fully agree with it for the reasons noted. In the US, where politics are much more fractious, I think that broadcasting results as they happen anywhere in the country is fraught with the danger of manipulation and voter apathy.
Kudos to Canada!
Thanks all!! Hugs!
I was on the side of "NO!" then I read Lynn's comment, and am on the side of "NO!!!"