No one said the elections are based on 'after the election was called by all the major news outlets'. Nice strawman though
You did. You said, and I quote: "over nine hours after the election was called by all the major news outlets." Who cares when the election was called by all the major news outlets?
Actually, I didn't say it and your quotes show it. You seem to be conflating "based" i.e. legally based upon, with "called" i.e. projected/determined/announced, which is why your retort is a strawman. The elections are legally based on the outcome of the electoral college vote on December 19th, where the electors are decided by the separate states based on the results of the state elections on November 8th. This is why a candidate can receive more overall votes yet still lose the election. What the news outlets do is CALL the election, sort of like an announcer does during a ball game, following all the moves and explaining the significance. In general the announcer is educated regarding how the game is played and their analysis is to be taken seriously since they have a need to be as accurate as possible to avoid losing their job or their listeners. The networks are the same - they need to provide trustworthy results so people will tune in again next election. They don't decide the election, they provide the data and analysis of what is happening, including when it appears one side has beaten the other. It is their track record since Dewey, a lesson they learned well, that make people have confidence in what they are saying. That is why when most or all of them are projecting which candidate has won, the candidates accept it since they know is a virtual certainty. It is still the electoral colleges job to make the official decision though.
So in your country there is no speculation or projection about who won until every single vote is counted? No one looks at the data available to see who is, within a truly negligibly small probability of error, the winner, and then that person begins the planning for assuming power? Sounds very inefficient and rather authoritarian actually.
Well, it doesn't take that long to count votes, if you do it properly.
Maybe we don't do it properly. There are ballots still being counted in places, and it has been over two weeks since they were cast. For example, some organisations have still not called Michigan.
We generally have projections that night, sure, but who the hell cares? Lets say Fox is projecting the R will win, and CNN is projecting the D. Should both concede? What about MSNBC? Who the hell cares?
Normally, the candidates care, as do their closer supporters since they have to hit the ground running, and the longer it takes to know who won means less time to get everything setup. That was a major problem for Bush in 2000. For example, when the president changes, every single Executive White House staff position (including Executive Office Building) needs to be restaffed by the new president's team, and that is a lot of people. They only have a couple months to figure it out, while also figuring out whom to nominate for all the cabinet and other presidential appointment positions.
Regarding different networks calling a different winner, name me an example in the last 50 years of that happening. It hasn't. And even if they all somehow did got it wrong, the incorrect projections would be discovered soon after and the real winner announced (followed by a lot of press shaming), and the true winner would be voted in by the college. The incorrectly called candidate would have spent wasted time while the actual winner would be facing a shortened time to organize. But then under your system of waiting until absolute certain, the winner would have had to wait anyway, so our system is at worse like yours.
I find it interesting that you think 'actually counting the votes in a democracy and using those to determine a winner' is 'authoritarian.'
Not sure what you are quoting since those are neither what I wrote, nor what any of the parent posts wrote. But again you misstate what I said. I was saying that telling people they have to "wait until the votes are actually counted" before "the loser says 'congrats, you won' and the winner says 'thanks, you ran a great campaign?'" was authoritarian. People want to know sooner than later so they can make plans, and to help with the "smooth" and "peaceful transition of power"[Obama 11/9/2016].
Better than CNN, Fox, MSNBC literally making up a winner, changing their minds multiple times during the course of the evening, and people like you thinking that there's some nefarious reason why a candidate would say 'well, the votes aren't in yet, but gosh darnit, I'm giving up.'
1. The networks aren't "literally" making up a winner, they are providing their forecast based on available data, and based on their track record, people give a lot of faith to their accuracy. The official legal determination happens later.
2. The networks didn't change their minds multiple times in the course of the evening. If I missed it, please provide me specifics of which networks and when so I can look. In other words, citation please.
3. All I said was Clinton knew she there was almost no hope of winning by 1:35am, yet at 2:07am Podesta comes out and declares there won't be any speech that night, and Clinton did not appear for more than 9 hours after the election was called at 2:30am, despite calling Trump and conceding to him. This goes against a long tradition, one that Obama directly referenced in the speech he gave on November 9th immediately after the one Clinton finally did. Contrast this to Romney conceding in 2012 at 1am after the election was called at 11:14pm, or McCain conceding at 11:20pm after the election being called at 11:03pm, or Kerry conceding at 2pm the next day (scheduled for 1pm but delayed) following the election being called at 11am (blame Ohio). Skipping 2000 due to the contested Florida votes, the list goes on for many, many elections. Why do you think Hillary's decision to ignore this long-standing tradition isn't a flag about her temperament?