How can we have reasonable discussion if there isn't basic transparency in the information presented here?

Item 1:

A few weeks ago I called for transparency for the data in compiling electoral vote maps.  

The diary was on the recommended list for more than 24 hours and 93% voted in favor of more information regarding which polls were used, their sample sizes, margins of error, etc.
http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/5/14/1450 42/287

The response from those who keep the maps was that a) They did it that way four years ago and b) The maps are helpful because you can click on them and change who gets what states.  

But:
 a) The internet has changed a lot in the last four years and what was new then is old technology now. While I used to recommend this site to the college students I teach and my friends and colleagues because of the information provided this not my choice for that purpose now. There are, simply put, better sites, for up to date, accurate and transparent information.  Of course that doesn't have to be the case. This site could be as good as the others.
  b) There's no technical reason that I know of as to why the maps can't both be used to show how the overall electoral votes would shift and allow for transparency regarding the data used to support them.

Item 2:

The graph now front-paged which purports to show that Clinton had more votes per pledged delegates than Obama. Besides certain problems posters have pointed out (such as the ridiculous use of a compressed range, an issue I learned about 30 years ago in an Intro Psych class, via the text How to Lie With Statistics and the issue relating to caucus states, etc.), there is no information presented about what vote totals were included.  The lack of transparency presents a problem for discussing in an intellectually honest way.