So who has the biased electoral vote count?

As of 9:45 CT, Fox shows the current standing electoral counts as:
Bush-269 Kerry-242

However, shows the standings at
Bush-254 Kerry-252

So, which one is more close to the truth, and why is the other one being biased?

The biggest difference is that Fox called Ohio for Bush far earlier than CNN (if CNN even has yet; as of 1 AM MST they hadn’t). While it now looks likely that Ohio will actually go Bush, at the time there were over 500,000 votes uncounted with a Bush lead of less than a fifth of that. Meanwhile, CNN called the other Great Lakes states (for Kerry) before Fox did (except for Illinois, which was a landslide). It’s not appropriate to speculate in GQ which was biased, but those are the facts of the matter.

Fox called Ohio for Bush, with Iowa, New Mexico, Wisconsin, and Nevada open. That left Bush at 269 and Kerry at 242, with 27 votes up for grabs. Under that scenario, a tie at 269 was possible.

CNN had given Nevada to Bush and given Wisconsin to Kerry, with Ohio, Iowa, and New Mexico open. That put Bush at 254 and Kerry at 252. That left 32 votes up for grabs and everything hinging on Ohio.

So, the only thing Fox and CNN agreed on was that Iowa and New Mexico were open. Fox thought Wisconsin and Nevada were open and Ohio closed. CNN thought Wisconsin and Nevada were closed and Ohio open.

Clear as mud, right? I guess it’s moot now because Kerry is conceding which means he concedes Ohio.

We can speculate all day long on whether or not either network held any bias when releasing results last night. I am guessing that the reason for the disparity may have been a guideline each network was following determining when they would report a state “officially” claimed by one of the candidates. Perhaps CNN was erring on the side of caution after what happened at ABC back in 2000.

If you look at the results this morning

Bush is still ahead in Ohio

Bush eventually carried Nevada

Kerry is still ahead in Wisconsin

And Iowa and New Mexico are still too close to call

In other words, both networks’ projections turned out to be accurate. They simply made them at different times. I don’t understand why you consider that “bias.”