Let’s stop calling elections early, shall we?

Many people were upset with how media publications and news networks handled the Iowa caucus results. Former President Donald Trump was declared the winner of the caucus yesterday. It was a resounding victory, with the former president winning by a significant margin. This is unsurprising, as essentially every poll projected Trump to win the caucus. Anger stems from the quickness with which the media called for Trump. 

Approximately 30 minutes after voting for the Iowa caucus began, the Associated Press declared Trump the winner. Several other news networks followed this. At the time, less than 0.55% of the precincts had reported their results on a day when Iowa experienced record-cold temperatures that affected voter turnout. 

Inclement weather aside, here is another thing that could affect voter turnout: declaring an election over 30 minutes after it began. 

This isn’t the first time a winner was projected quickly; unless major changes happen in the country, it won’t be the last. A similar situation occurred during the 2020 presidential election, in which Fox News infamously projected the state of Arizona and its critical electoral votes for Joe Biden. Fox declared Biden the winner of Arizona much sooner than any other network. 

It drew the ire of Republican voters and President Donald Trump (who incidentally didn’t seem to mind the media calling the election in his favor this time). Many claimed it potentially caused would-be Trump voters to go home and not cast a ballot. It was a legitimate point, even if it is debatable that Fox’s projection made much difference. 

Nevertheless, there is no reason to rush to announce election projections or victory declarations. It’s all part of the arguably toxic practice of media networks to be the first to report something. And today, the urgency to be first doesn’t correlate with an urgency to be factual. Moreover, seldom, if at all, do networks consider the consequences of this haste. It’s a phenomenon that has damaged the media’s credibility and caused many to distrust the Fourth Estate. 

In both instances, Arizona and Iowa, the quick projections turned out to be correct. However, were claims that it affected voter turnout plausible? Truthfully, probably no one knows for sure. Theoretically, the answer is a resounding yes. 

Consider the circumstances in Iowa. Hypothetically, suppose a voter had to go out in frigid temperatures, during record-setting low conditions, in a winter storm, and then wait in line to vote, only to find out the election winner was declared 30 minutes after it began. In that case, it’s not a stretch to believe that many voters would skip that hassle, stay home, and not participate.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

Objectively, there is no legitimate need to rush to project an election winner other than the fragile egos of media networks and personalities. Moreover, we should be doing things to ensure more people vote, not less. It’s hard to say what could be done to prevent these projections. One suggestion is to mandate waiting until a significant percentage of precincts have reported, somewhere in the neighborhood of over 50%. Others involve not reporting until all votes are counted, which is probably the most ideal, even if it is also the most unrealistic. 

In a perfect world, the media’s role in influencing voter turnout because of its reporting would be minimal. And, in this world, they would be held accountable for their actions if they did affect turnout. The objective should be to get as many people to vote as possible. Rushing to declare a winner 30 minutes after an election starts does nothing to accomplish this.