A handful of complaints about election coverage...

As we near the end of a 21-month presidential campaign, there's one consensus that seems clear nationally – we're all ready for it to end. And in a few days, barring a repeat of the 2000 election counting issues, we'll know who the nation has selected to lead us into the next four years.

But before we move on, I thought I'd comment a little on some campaign news coverage habits that I'm ready to see end:

1) Enough of the daily poll updates already. Do we really need a poll of polls from every state every day for the final 2-1/2 months of the election. It seems like the day is coming when we'll all be wired into a big data collection unit and show our candidate preferences in real time all the time. Imagine the target demographic breakdowns they could give.

It doesn't help that they continually tell us that these polls are often wrong. That the accuracy of the poll depends upon: a) which turnout model ends up being correct; b) how the undecided voters swing; and c) whether or not people are telling the truth to the pollsters.

So ... the polls swing all the time, tighten as the election nears and are often wrong because they depend upon variables that no one can predict. But we spend hour after hour talking about them. This makes little sense to me.

2) Stop repeating candidate lies. When you prove that a statement they make is wrong, stop putting them on the airwaves repeating the falsehoods. Your first obligation is to be accurate. Some candidates seem to think that if they simply repeat a lie often enough it will be accepted as truth. 

3) Be a little more picky about the so-called experts you put on the air. A loud-mouth name-caller might make for good banter, but really, how does this serve anyone. Last night, Chris Matthews had Tom Delay on and let him spew his venom ad nauseum for five minutes. Then he put on a more diplomatic Florida Congresswoman to counter his views. Delay is a notable figure from the Republican party, but he left office in disgrace not to long ago and presumably has not been in contact with either campaign. He's no longer relevant. But at least he's a known name, which is more than I can say about many of the political commentators we see.

4) We're paying way too much to name-calling. Like the lies, continuously broadcasting the name calling does little to further the ability of voters to make an informed decision. We've seen the labels Socialist, Communist, Marxists, anti-American, and others thrown around. It's pure silliness. I guess the tried and true label of liberal no longer works. Of course, the Democrats should be blamed for this as well. They just do their name calling in a more subtle fashion and seem to think the name "George Bush" is more destructive than right wing or war monger.

So, what are your pet peeves about election coverage? Share them now, before you forget.