The Associated Press has polling agents stationed across America, who are, or are associated with, the many AP correspondents.
Those people are supposed to report back to the AP, the vote count at each county seat in the U.S.A.
Yet they also report back their own, demographic polling data taken before, and during, election night, that is supposed to indicate to them, who will win, who is winning --- REGARDLESS OF THE ACTUAL VOTE COUNT.
The numbers tabulated on the TV screen and anywhere else, ARE ALL ESTIMATES.
They are not the actual vote count.
Now, some of the total for a candidate, is made up actual vote counts as reported by some county seats' board of elections, but there are still added, estimates for each candidate, so the total on the TV screen is NOT the actual total of actual county seats' reportings.
In theory, the numbers are supposed to be accurate, but in practice, not everybody out there is completely honest about the numbers they report.
In 1996, I had thought that surely the results for Bob Dole must be wrong. I called the RNC. They told me that they do not keep track of the numbers, "the AP does it."
The government does not even do it.
So, in my humble opinion, on election night, there should be no reporting at all, about the elections.
We should wait for the actual tally about a week later.
No candidate should make any speech of any kind, for a week.
Just silence.
Then, somebody may like to concede.
All the show on election night, is just that, a show.
Supposedly, since 1996, the AP has been under some pressure to do a better job of being accurate, but "that remains to be seen."
I don't trust them.
Reading the above article reminds me of how much I don't trust them.
Because when the gentleman in question, first took charge, there were glowing reports on how he was the better choice --- AP Wire stories --- instead of using the man who was more favored by the White House.
Now that, is "conflicted" with the indoctrination by the socialist journalism professors at university where the AP staff learned how to write politically-correct-nik, that is, give no quarter to the truth, rather, use the Marxist Thesarus and all its adjectives and idoms to paint the truth in to a corner that cannot be seen by the readers: Tell lies and make them "good ones" in order to gain another inch of socialist absolutism.
The networks get all there numbers that you see on the TV, from the AP.
My comments are based upon what I discovered from looking into the matter, the night after the 1996 elections.
As I said before, there may be more accuracy, but I doubt it.
My point is, that the people, in general, think that the numbers shown on the TV are the actual count; they are unaware of the estimates included.
An estimate at a precinct, might go something like this:
An AP agent counts all the people who come out of the door. The ask questions of the people leaving, and then make an estimate of the whole, based upon the sampling of the few who were willing to talk about their choices.
Those estimates are reported to the AP center that in turn, the TV networks monitor for the numbers that they will choose to report on the TV screen.
The network numbers differ, because of the fluid situation and because the networks also "balance" the estimates with their own.
This gets to be a problem for close races and can mislead people.
My own two cents is, that no reporting should be permitted for 24 hours, that is, until the evening after election day.
Thanks for the ping!