Obsessively following results
Nov. 2nd, 2004 08:54 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
amandac777Some interesting notes.
In Ohio, according to MSNBC, a judge has ordered that people waiting in really, really long lines (2-4 hours) be given paper ballots to fill in now. Interesting -- I like the idea, but it worries me they'll be challenged later.
I've been following www.slate.com 's Election Scorecard for weeks. They've been tracking polls and listing who's likely to win electoral votes based on that. There are three categories they list for each candidate: solid, likely, and iffy (the REAL swing states). According to this, the real swing states are Florida and Ohio (which they've been moving back and forth the last few days); Iowa, Minnesota, and Wisconsin; then possible upsets in Hawaii, New Hampshire and New Mexico. All the "likely" states could also change, but are somewhat less likely to. I've got my own tracking list based on this, plus my own little map that I'm coloring in because it makes me feel like I'm doing something; it's no different than the ones I'm getting my info from. It also makes me feel like I'm in elementary school, but that's beside the point.
They're being very cautious about giving results in states where differences are close, which is a very good choice. However, it's still sort of amusing that the ones that are *not* close are being declared, with the vote totals (official reported) as 0-0. OTOH, there are lots of others that look like it's very lopsided, but 1-15% of precincts are reporting. Since that's hardly a random sample, those results may not be remotely representative of state results, but you still look at it and go, wow, that isn't close at all.
In Ohio, according to MSNBC, a judge has ordered that people waiting in really, really long lines (2-4 hours) be given paper ballots to fill in now. Interesting -- I like the idea, but it worries me they'll be challenged later.
I've been following www.slate.com 's Election Scorecard for weeks. They've been tracking polls and listing who's likely to win electoral votes based on that. There are three categories they list for each candidate: solid, likely, and iffy (the REAL swing states). According to this, the real swing states are Florida and Ohio (which they've been moving back and forth the last few days); Iowa, Minnesota, and Wisconsin; then possible upsets in Hawaii, New Hampshire and New Mexico. All the "likely" states could also change, but are somewhat less likely to. I've got my own tracking list based on this, plus my own little map that I'm coloring in because it makes me feel like I'm doing something; it's no different than the ones I'm getting my info from. It also makes me feel like I'm in elementary school, but that's beside the point.
They're being very cautious about giving results in states where differences are close, which is a very good choice. However, it's still sort of amusing that the ones that are *not* close are being declared, with the vote totals (official reported) as 0-0. OTOH, there are lots of others that look like it's very lopsided, but 1-15% of precincts are reporting. Since that's hardly a random sample, those results may not be remotely representative of state results, but you still look at it and go, wow, that isn't close at all.
