AP and Reuters pay people to check the results locally. Between them, they feed a LOT of outlets. A significant amount of the data is available online pretty quickly, but some states and localities simply don't publish the data in a timely manner.
Some news organizations will have their own staff checking results, especially in areas where it is known that the results will be slow and the results are going to be within polling error margins.
You'd think the data could be crowd-sourced more effectively, but private citizens get the data more slowly for a few reasons ... First is that there is red tape involved in obtaining the data (i.e. forms to fill out, fees to pay and it all must be done ahead of time) and second is that after-hours early access to data is just plain limited logistically. If it could be efficiently delivered to a large quantity of people, it would be presented online.
There are a few areas where the government decides that it's more efficient to let private parties distribute data, and it's generally pretty good business to become one of those parties. NMVTIS data comes to mind immediately (carfax and it's competitors), but there are many similar instances.
I did this for the AP in high school. They pay you about 40 bucks and two of you go and write it down independently. You than each call the AP and state your numbers and that's it. You show up about 30 minutes before the polls close and you leave about 30 minutes after they end, pretty good pay for an hour (particularly if you are in high school)
Because of the time zones in the United States and the electoral college system, if certain states on the east coast are called for Candidate B and it is then concluded that Candidate A has no path to victory, that might depress turnout in the western states who are still voting.
Reuters experimented with this the last midterm, but did not for this general election. The AP is generally the source most major news outlets use in the US.
It's a very difficult operation, with state-by-state rules and some precincts that don't exactly want journalists hanging around all night.
Some news organizations will have their own staff checking results, especially in areas where it is known that the results will be slow and the results are going to be within polling error margins.
You'd think the data could be crowd-sourced more effectively, but private citizens get the data more slowly for a few reasons ... First is that there is red tape involved in obtaining the data (i.e. forms to fill out, fees to pay and it all must be done ahead of time) and second is that after-hours early access to data is just plain limited logistically. If it could be efficiently delivered to a large quantity of people, it would be presented online.
There are a few areas where the government decides that it's more efficient to let private parties distribute data, and it's generally pretty good business to become one of those parties. NMVTIS data comes to mind immediately (carfax and it's competitors), but there are many similar instances.