RateItAll: The Opinion Network

All the more time for President Mugabe's minions to stuff the ballot boxes.

Seems like a nuance of the "Don't report results until voting is complete" and an unnecessary one.

The principle of not reporting until all polls close is to prevent early results (or worse yet, exit polls) in Fart Harbour, Maine from being reported and projected by a network "expert" as ensuring the election of Candidate Front-runner, thus giving the dimmer witted among the good voters of Treehuggerton, California less incentive to vote, since their candidate is either winning or already defeated.

Waiting until the votes are actually counted seems like overkill to me.

I think that this would be a great idea. Some people that I know wait to see which one is winning and than they go vote for them- Not a very cool thing to do! It might change the way some people vote. I think that some people might find it easier to concentrate on who they actually want to vote for. I think the saying "Go with the flow" has been the way some people choose who to vote for. If they dont know who is winning than they will have to actually think for themself!

Not a bad idea, but the nation might become a little restless while the Alaska dog sled vote comes in the next day about noon!

While waiting for the polls to close is one of the better ideas being bantered about for improving the election process in the U.S. (barring any First Amendment issues), waiting for all votes to be counted is simply impractical and would have those same constitutional concerns. I doubt that the citizens will wait that long for the results (didn't they just announce the official winner in a Louisiana election?), and decisions must be made relatively soon (i.e. cabinet members and other transitional steps). The First Amendment hurdle alone may prohibit a change if the eastern states perceive some advantage to the status quo. I will say that this suggestion has the potential of increasing voter turnout along with the perception (and reality) that all votes count. The policy would also prohibit voters from altering a planned protest vote after gaining the knowledge of the outcome of earlier results. The bottom line is that delaying reporting until all votes are counted might require major legal changes and has some real negative impact, but would have some advantages (that could be gained by other reform).

Here I am, stuck to my chair; I was anxious as hell all day at work (and I'm not the only one), and now even though I'm anxious to know the results as it stands, and NOW, I know it's not for the best and it's better to wait. Even if it kills me. Man, this race has gotta end soon, it's too much to handle.

Here is a pledge I support, courtesy of andrewsullivan.com: I pledge: After the election results are in, I promise to: : Support the President, even if I didn't vote for him: Criticize the President, even if I did vote for him : Uphold standards of civilized discourse in blogs and in media while pushing both to be better: Unite as a nation, putting country over party, even as we work together to make America better. Good stuff, good pledge. Hold me to this EO, Lance, Abichara, Bee, TBoneya, etc, and I will do my best to hold you all to it as well.

That takes forever.

I really don't want results reported until everyone has voted. Too many people give up and go home. After the last polls close--fine, then start making projections on the votes counted so far. So three stars since I think reporting results is OK before all votes are counted, but NOT until after everyone has voted.

News organizations shouldn't project a winner based on exit polling. That was the problem with Florida in 2000. Initially, the media called the state for Gore but then they switched back to Bush. They called the race way too early, in fact, the polls hadn't closed in the Panhandle, a heavily Republican area. However the question is whether or not voting results should be reported on until 100% of the vote is counted. I don't believe this is necessary because it's easy to project who's the winner once 50% of the vote is in. If the results are seesawing back and forth, they won't call it until there is a definitely trend towards one candidate or the other.

Yes. This would have drastically lessened the confusion and corruption in our last election.

Indeed, I believe that voting results should not be revealed until 100% of the vote is counted. The confusion in the election of 2000 is a stunning example of this, considering that CNN first announced Gore as the President-elect, then Bush, and then so forth. In the final analysis, there simply is no reason to reveal the voting results until the entire vote is counted, considering that such reports may influence voters across the nation.

Georgie-boy STOLE the freaking election. If we don't report the results of the vote until every vote (and this includes dimpled chands, swinging chads, dangling chads, hanging chads, eaten chads, and any other kind I forgot to mention) has been counted, things like that would NOT happen. We have a MADMAN in office. He is a couple cards short of a full deck, and that is why he is so HUNGRY for AFGHAN BLOOD! In 2004, evryone be sure to fill out the ballot correctly and then, the Democratic candadite will justly win!

If they didn't report until it was all counted I wouldn't say it was a bad thing but I don't think it's necessary as long as voting is closed. Once it's closed if they want to speculate and do the whole color coded map thing for the viewing audience then more power to them.