Election coverage and results

Having watched a lot of the US election coverage, comparing it to the BBC's effort last Thursday, we are a long way behind. The quality of the information offered by the BBC is woeful. Pundits are making conclusions about what is happening in elections seemingly on informed hunches rather than the available information. Actually, small trends can be very important in understanding who is voting which way and why.

Take a look at this exit poll data that is supplied by CNN as soon as the polls close on every Presidential primary. Perhaps it is because competition is greater amongst newscasters in the US. Well, if that is the case, I do not believe that the BBC is fulfilling its public service remit. See their excuse for statistical analysis below:



You might say that only anoraks care about electoral data analysis but who else is watching the results at 3am on a Friday morning?

Maybe I'm missing something but I haven't seen any comprehensive demographic breakdown whatsoever from last Thursday's local elections. If I have just overlooked it then please someone point me in the right direction. The Labour party is having a ferocious discussion about its future direction and all sorts of things are being asserted about what is happening to Labour's vote based on scant evidence, anecdote, and assertion.

It's just a bad at General Elections where you have to wait months for either Electoral Commission data or the British Election Survey. There is no reason for this whatsoever.

Finally, it is ridiculous to not finish the count of the Mayoral race until more than a day after the polls close. In the Pennsylvania primary where just over two million people voted (about the same as the London Mayoral race) results were available in just a few hours. Again, no excuse for the delay whatsoever.