Leader: US Election 2004 verdict

Bush or Kerry? Republican or Democrat? It has never been the policy of silicon.com to endorse candidates in political elections. That could always change if a truly tech-savvy, progressive candidate were to come along - anywhere - but that person hasn't.

Avid readers may well pick up on a certain Bush-baiting that has accompanied columns such as the Weekly Round-Up in recent months. But again, for all the man's many faults, let's not confuse such fun-making with a hard and fast political stance.

We're no fans of any number of his policies but we stop short of saying 'Vote Kerry'. Both men have wanted to court the tech and telco vote - who wouldn't? - but have neatly sidestepped important questions about outsourcing and offshoring, for example, taking on board the arguments that any capitalist candidates must play to the electorate with 'No jobs overseas' rhetoric.

The non-partisanship is not particularly because we are a non-US-based publication - the tech and general business sectors catch cold over there, and we're left wiping noses over here for a while. We feel comfortable commenting.

Instead, we may well ask what tech can tell us about the likely result. Setting aside plenty of articles in recent months about e-voting and the fact that a record number of US voters will have voted early this time - casting a guilty or not-guilty verdict before the lawyers have finished their summing up, as one critic put it - two recent predictions stand out.

First, consider our story from last week about online bookie Betfair. Again, this is a UK-based organisation. Not many of punters it takes money from are (officially at least) from the US. But it stands by its statement that if the market is to be believed then Bush will easily make it back into the Oval Office for a second term.

It claims no political insight, only studying the movement of money, its unique model allowing punters to lay bets on odds that their fellow gamblers supply - as opposed to a traditional bookie that sets prices itself.

It also points out one truth about betting - when people lay a bet there is no room for the type of dishonesty possible in opinion polls.

In contrast, a column in a UK paper this weekend stood out on account of a theory few others have expounded during this race. Film critic David Thomson - of all people - reckons that because opinion polls in the US this time generally use fixed lines to call Joe and Jane Public, they miss the 'cellphone vote'. Those who only use a mobile phone are likely to be younger, more tech-savvy and in all probability more pro-Kerry than Bush, the argument goes.

It's a theory that has had the team here scratching its heads over the past 24 hours.

Do we go with the views of the trusted American critic in the IoS or the money of bet by mainly non-voting British punters?

Again, it's too close to call. More updates on Wednesday when we hope - this time - to be able to bring the tech angle on the winner.