Should bloggers post early exit poll data?

No, says the indignant moralist who loudly informs everyone within earshot that there is nudity on channel 35 at 10:15 pm every other night.

Pundits now talk about elections in progress when they know full well the results of exit polls (which are useful, but by no means perfect) and yet they withhold that information from their audiences. How silly is that?

[update: a commenter points to Jack Shafer's take on this.]

Comments

[Randy]

I couldn't give less of a crap.

[newspaper reporter]

It's very, very silly. Read Jack Shafer at Slate for more on this, and for the actual poll numbers.

And in a related question, how much ass does Jack Shafer kick? How does a real libertarian infiltrate the East Coast/Ivy League Liberal Media Conspiracy at such a high level?

[Gordon Shumway]

Even worse than the exit polls is the people who are coming out of the voting place when I'm going in and talking about who they voted for. Don't they know they are influencing my vote? Can't somebody shut them up? How can I make up my mind when I have to hear what other people think?

I'm not the only one. My neighbor saw three Hasidic Jews leaving as he was going to vote. He knew at that point Lieberman must have won, and he went home without voting. Communication and information have no place in a democracy.

[anon]

The only reasonable solution is real-time information. Let all the campaigns and voters know where things stand, so they can decide to vote (or not) based on all available information. I still don't know why it matters why the people who voted at 9:00 am will have any effect on how I vote at 5:00 pm.

[MJ]

What good purpose is served by releasing exit poll results before the real polls close? Personally, I find the reliance on polls as news to be one the more irritating aspects of journalism today, the less they are used the better, all the more so because they now appear to be giving more of their share of false results.

[Jean Bart]

does not

[Douglas Fletcher]

Because many of the people who staff the voting stations are old and have to be in bed before 9 o'clock.

Also, the elections are regulated mainly by the States, and I suppose it would take a lot of log rolling to get most of them to go along with something like that. Also, it would take a lot more volunteers to run things for 12 hours more.

The 24 hour thing might be a good idea but I have the impression that if people are really interested in voting, they find a way. Most of the conversations I've ever had with people who don't vote are of the "politicians are all the same" variety, though I've heard other, more unusual reasons.

[Warren]

I'm in favor of voting via mail in ballots. By the time they started counting the outcome would be forgone.

[Warren]

Internet voting also has great promise, but given the current mess with touch-creen technology, we absolutely need paper ballots.

[Highway]

Half the people I know think hear poll numbers and say 'oh well, it's over, I don't need to vote', while the other half say "Over? Did somebody say Over? Nothing is over until WE decide it is!" If you don't want to go vote, you'll use any excuse. If you're gonna vote, you're gonna vote. I think the media folks give themselves too much credit.

[Jean Bart]

Why does the U.S. have twenty-four hour poll starting at the same time across the nation?