"Exit polls, which are used in elections around the globe to eliminate the possibility of election fraud, are -- according to Warren Mitofsky...not intended for this purpose in America."
Mitofsky offers a service to customers (usually MSM). He asks his customers what they would like the exit poll to do for them. In the US, MSM (the customer) has traditionally asked for exit polls that will enable them to make really cool statements about the demographics of the election. Since they are the customer, Mitofsky designs a poll that will give them what they want. Unfortunately, an exit poll designed to ONLY let the customer make really cool statements about the demographics of the election, is poorly suited for election verification.
Now, Mitofsky could design a exit poll that does everything the MSM wants AND is also well suited for election verification, but such a poll costs a lot more money because it requires a true random sample of respondents. His customers aren't going to pay for something they didn't ask for, so he would have to absorb this cost himself.
So, while it may be a vital point you are trying to make, it's not hard to understand why this exit poll is not well suited for election verification, and it has nothing to do with 'fecklessness and lack of professionalism.'
In Germany, they really like there exit polls to offer reassurances that the election was fair and free of shenanigans. So, they design a exit polls that will give them what they want.
Exit polls are all about design and cost. Hopefully, you and other alternate (is this accurate word for what your paper is ?) news papers will pay for this in 2008. I doubt MSM will.
All about German exit polls here:
http://www.mysterypollster.com/main/2004/12/what_about_thos.html-------------------------------------------------------------
One last unrelated thing that may help your reporting: Exit polls that make it possible to say really cool demographic things about the election DON"T HAVE TO BE TAKEN FROM A RANDOM SAMPLE OF RESPONDENTS, and it would be silly for Mitofsky to try for a true random sample of respondents when he doesn't have to (the cost thing.) This is the primary reason it is not possible to use statistics like Stephen Freeman does. His analysis is bunk, and he admits as much (though I doubt he is aware of it) on page 3 of the most recent version of his paper.