Talk:National Election Pool

Untitled

Even after the election, the information from the pool is only avaialable to subscribers, is there any way of making elections more transparent, to see if Diebold's been hacking the vote?

Credibility of the Electoral Process

Did anyone notice how the messed up the election really was? About 2am, I am watching media project states that only had 33% reported and they said the poll workers had gone home and would resume work the next day, and every channel followed suite and reported the exact same garbage. The public can tell this is fraud, and the data collection and tabulation is cooked. It would not surprise me if the whole voting process was public exercise that contributes nothing to the way candidates end up in office. When a person "casts a ballot", you are literally sending the data into a void that can never be retrieved by the voter again, so how do we know if our vote was ever recorded? A persons vote is a matter of public record, so why can't a voter retrieve their information? The fact that a state has hole in key counties should be a clear indicator of a failed system. Why do some counties fail to report, while others do? It's totally inconsistent. When the polls close, it takes about a millisecond for the computer to tabulate the results, but why do poll workers and state officials think they have the right to this data before the results are made public? What gives the state the right to certify poll results. At every point where there is human intervention is highly suspect because each of us are voters, and politicians should be the last people on earth by to certify any poll data. The media and politicians has are not trustworthy to certify, or qualified to project any vote outcome. Why should any state be considered a "battleground" state, when they all are. The Electoral College is a disgrace to democracy and in the information age, we certainly have the technology to implement a fair non-partisan voting system yet they refuse to do so. Why does the public stand for such corruption by the states. There is nobody keeps these people honest, and they aren't... but you are expected to believe this is science. There is nothing sacred with face-to-face interaction at the polling place that makes it secure or reliable and really has the opposite effect. The polling places are subject to injected bias from all angles. Many polling places are in churches which clear violation the constitutional amendment of separation of church and state. If there was such a thing as an "exit poll" where is the data from that survey? where is the sample methodology and statistical analysis that make it valid? The public knows what a survey is, but what are the questions? how is sample selected and what is the size, the margin of error, etc. There is not even a shred of evidence that an "exit poll" was ever conducted, and it seem that if the media used exit poll data, there would be an in depth website that supported the the data collection with details. If the US Census can do a survey like ACS, and a 100% Census every decade, then why are they not taking the lead? They are the experts at data collection with resources that far exceed anything sponsored by the media, so why are they not empowered to count the vote? I am only one voice of millions, but if I am thinking it, then other people are too. It's time for a change and the best place to start is with a lame duck president. If the media can claim their data is scientific, their going to have to back it up with real data. We are sick and tired of pundit bickering and want to see the interviews of the statisticians who can tell us that all the projections were 100% accurate, or what the actual results are. I don't understand how Edison Research can charge thousands of dollars for exit poll data of a public election. It's not at all transparent and the guarded secrecy is highly suspect. The analyst coverage in the media is saying "Look at the Exit Poll data", but the audience has no access to it. Mapsurfer49 (talk) 13:52, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

"Edison Research" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Edison Research has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 June 8 § Edison Research until a consensus is reached. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 14:15, 9 June 2025 (UTC)