I've been thinking of an analogy in regards to how the media announces the presidential election winner before all of the votes have been counted, in fact before all the votes have even been cast.
It's like a sports game is in progress - let's say American football (forgive me if my terminology is off; I don't pay much attention to sports). Suppose Team Hackensack is playing against Team Puckenball. Suppose the game is in the beginning of the fourth quarter, or maybe even in the middle of the third. It's as if, while a player is in the midst of throwing the ball across the field, the loudspeakers blare out, "The game is over! Team Hackensack has won! Congratulations to the Hackensacks!" The spectators jump up, cheering in glee and/or groaning in dismay. Then they start filing out of the stadium. Meanwhile, the players on the field are left standing and scratching their heads, wondering what happened.
I mean, really. Even if one team has a large lead, and the other team has a poor track record, it's standard practice to wait until the game is over, before announcing the results. Even if there's no way that the losing team could possibly win enough points in the time remaining, to gain the lead, the winner isn't announced until the end. The media may say that one team is winning, and is nearly certain to win the overall game. But they don't announce that the game is over before the game is actually over. Whereas, with the presidential elections, they do.
(The below was a comment I posted on another journal, but I originally intended to post about it here on mine.)
I came across the below document, which fascinates me and also disturbs me in how precisely legislative districts are drawn to meet desired criteria. From what I was able to glean from it, there was a lot of redistricting going on in the 1970s and 80s. Somewhen in the 80s or early 90s, the Department of Justice told the SC legislature that it had to create more black-majority districts. This was subsequently done by means of racial gerrymandering. A district court then declared the new districts invalid, as districts should not be drawn on the basis of race, except under certain conditions which were not met.Smith v. Beasley opinion
"Gerrymandering has been a part of our political system since the word was coined more than 175 years ago. The drawing of district lines for political purposes has often been criticized, but it is not illegal. However, the Supreme Court has determined that gerrymandering which divides voters according to race violates the Equal Protection Clause. In Miller, the Court explained, "When the State assigns voters on the basis of race, it engages in the offensive and demeaning assumption that voters of a particular race, because of their race, 'think alike, share the same political interests, and will prefer the same candidates in the polls.' "
"Constitutional prohibition against dividing or segregating citizens by race applies equally to districting cases, and state's assignment of voters according to race is subject to court's strictest scrutiny under equal protection clause."
"Both the Senate and the House had sophisticated computer equipment that was maintained for the purpose of drawing election district lines. These machines were equipped with software that showed precincts, streets, population and racial composition of all areas based on the 1990 federal census data base. Technicians could show legislators how moving district lines could increase or decrease the racial makeup of a particular district."