Google Election Results

I like The New York Times coverage more: <a href="http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/results/president/big-board" rel="nofollow">http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/results/president/big-boar...</a> - I think it's more visually appealing and also more functional.

Why do they count a state as having been won by a candidate after only 5%, 10%, or even 25% of the total precincts are reported? That cannot possibly have given a candidate the 51% they need to carry the state.

Bing has the same: <a href="http://www.bing.com/elections/" rel="nofollow">http://www.bing.com/elections/</a>

I am really annoyed to see many of these pages calling states for a candidate with 0% of votes in.<p>Can't we at least wait until a statistically valid sample of actual votes is in?

Wow, surprisingly Google appear to be quite behind in terms of tallying up the votes. The Huffington Post amongst others appear to have way more up-to-date information: <a href="http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/2012/results" rel="nofollow">http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/2012/results</a>, disappointing on Google's part.

The NYT (and other news sites...check out the Chicago Tribune's clean map <a href="http://elections.chicagotribune.com/results/us-president/" rel="nofollow">http://elections.chicagotribune.com/results/us-president/</a>)...win hands down in looks and functionality, in such a way that you wonder why Google even tried. They don't appear to have more up-to-date info either.<p>They might have a different source of data but that isn't at all communicated in this format. There must be other, niftier ways to present the data (results and any other kind of data) and chronological structure of our election day than just a map.<p>That said, I hope Google continues to be a real competitor in terms of providing the voting results data.

Politico seems to have more current information: <a href="http://www.politico.com/2012-election/map/#/President/2012/" rel="nofollow">http://www.politico.com/2012-election/map/#/President/2012/</a>

I dig the InTrade page: <a href="http://www.intrade.com/v4/misc/electoral-map/" rel="nofollow">http://www.intrade.com/v4/misc/electoral-map/</a>

NPR had a really nice results dashboard also: <a href="http://election2012.npr.org/" rel="nofollow">http://election2012.npr.org/</a>

WSJ.com had great looking coverage, but their flash (I think - didn't check) seems to be broken and their map is unusable under load. PBS has the best commentary IMHO, but their website crashed early under load.

More first-past-the-post foolishness: Obama got 50.3% of the popular vote but 59.9% of the electoral college vote, while Romney got 48.2% of the popular vote but 40.5% of the electoral college vote.

BBC is my favorite: <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20009195" rel="nofollow">http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20009195</a>

Yahoo! <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/control-room/" rel="nofollow">http://news.yahoo.com/control-room/</a>

Regarding Google News real-time coverage, they should call it near-real-time coverage.

...and so, with the way it's going... can we make a decent estimate of the victor?

I just get a box under results saying 'access not allowed'. Anyone else?