Slashdot Mirror


Google Will Display Election Results As Soon As Polls Close (techcrunch.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from TechCrunch: Google has been highly involved with connecting U.S. voters to timely information throughout this election cycle, by offering everything from voter registration assistance to polling place information in its search result pages. Today, the company announced plans to display the results of the U.S. election directly in search, in over 30 languages, as soon as the polls close. Web searchers who query for "election results" will be able to view detailed information on the Presidential, Senatorial, Congressional, Gubernatorial races as well as state-level referenda and ballot propositions, says Google. The results will be updated continuously -- every 30 seconds, as indicated by a screenshot shared by the company on its official blog post detailing the new features. Tabs across the top will let you switch to between the various races, like President, House, and Senate, for example. The results will also include information like how many more electoral votes a presidential candidate needs to win, how many seats are up for grabs in the House and Senate, and how many Gubernatorial races are underway, among other things. This data is presented in an easy-to-read format, with Democrats in blue, Republicans in red, and simple graphs, alongside the key numbers.

174 comments

  1. Honestly by negRo_slim · · Score: 0

    I'd prefer Google to stop meddling with the elections altogether.

    --
    On the Oregon Cost born and raised, On the beach is where I spent most of my days
    1. Re:Honestly by ASDFnz · · Score: 1

      What is it they are doing? (Not living in the US I don't seem to have been targeted by "Google election meddling")

    2. Re:Honestly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How does one meddle with something that is already rigged?
      OR ...
      I would have got away with it if it wasn't for you meddling Google.

    3. Re:Honestly by PopeRatzo · · Score: 3, Funny

      I'd prefer Google to stop meddling with the elections altogether.

      How do you feel about Russia meddling with the elections?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    4. Re:Honestly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      From Censorship by Google

      "During the 2016 Presidential Election, Google was accused by SourceFed for manipulating its results in favor of Hillary Clinton. They alleged that the recommended searches for the candidate are different than the recommended searchers to both Yahoo and Bing and yet the searches for both Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders are identical to both Yahoo and Bing. Furthermore, SourceFed placed the recommended searches for Clinton on Google Trends and observed that these terms were searched less than the recommended searchers for both Yahoo and Bing.[42][43] Later, on July 27, Google again faced controversy when Trump and Gary Johnson were left out of the Google search for "Presidential Candidates."[44] Google has responded with a statement that these omissions were as a result of a "technical bug" and has subsequently brought back the candidates.[45]"

      [42] Hern, Alex (June 10, 2016). "Google Manipulating Search In Favor Of Hillary Clinton?". Techaeris. Retrieved June 10, 2016.
      [43] http://www.washingtontimes.com, The Washington Times (June 9, 2016). "Google accused of burying negative Hillary Clinton stories". The Washingtion Times. Retrieved June 10, 2016.
      [44] Fingas, Jon (July 27, 2016). "Google searches omitted key US presidential candidates". Engadget. Retrieved July 27, 2016.
      [45] Brandom, Russell (July 27, 2016). "Google tweaks system after Trump left off search results for 'presidential candidates'". The Verge. Retrieved July 28, 2016.

    5. Re:Honestly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No proof Russia meddled in anything. Just crazy clinton conspiracy theories.

    6. Re:Honestly by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What is it they are doing?

      They are reporting the truth. Most ideologues consider that "meddling".

    7. Re:Honestly by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      Any sufficient level of incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.

      "Accidental" my ass.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    8. Re:Honestly by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How do you feel about Russia meddling with the elections?

      You mean when the Russians gave the American people accurate information that America's own leaders were trying to hide? Is that the "meddling" you are referring to?

    9. Re:Honestly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Raggy ... is that you?

    10. Re:Honestly by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      "We didnt realize that the comparison if(term == "gary johnson") return 0; would bias the search results. Sorry about that."

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    11. Re:Honestly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is what trumpetts actually believe.

      Careful or mom's gonna revoke your GBP and you won't get any tendies for a week.

    12. Re:Honestly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gary Johnson's value is zero?

      Yep... sounds about right.

    13. Re:Honestly by Jeremi · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You mean when the Russians gave the American people accurate information that America's own leaders were trying to hide? Is that the "meddling" you are referring to?

      Digging up all the dirt you can find on a candidate and then dumping it to the public (at the time you think it will do the most damage to their reputation) is not a new practice; when a political campaign does it, it is called "opposition research".

      So now we have Russia doing opposition research on behalf of the Republican Party. I'd call that meddling, wouldn't you?

      You don't really believe that Putin has the best interests of the American voters in mind, do you?

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    14. Re:Honestly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I noticed you didn't produce any details to the contrary. This is why elections in USA are complete bullshit. Everyone attacking the other people instead of providing useful data. I'd bet the candidates spend more time attacking others than promoting themselves.

    15. Re:Honestly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The "details" are there if you care to look for them. I mean, it's almost as if we're living in an age where almost the sum of human knowledge is accessible from a device you carry around in your pocket. Those that care to educate themselves have already done so. (Rather than suffer in a self-inflicted information bubble)

      This isn't the forum for posting links to "win" an argument.

      I'm just here to make fun of idiots saying stupid things.

    16. Re:Honestly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Russians are doing jack shit. They have there own problems.

    17. Re:Honestly by chihowa · · Score: 1

      You don't really believe that Putin has the best interests of the American voters in mind, do you?

      Frankly, I don't think that either of the major party candidates (or most of the party leadership) have the best interests of the American voters in mind. From my perspective, any additional accurate information is helpful, even if it comes from distasteful sources.

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
    18. Re:Honestly by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      If they are reporting results when the polls close then that's not the truth. They're engaging in statistical prediction which is not the same thing as presenting the truth.

    19. Re: Honestly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The info came from American govt workers who would like the truth to get out, but would like to live much longer than some other Clinton accusers.

    20. Re: Honestly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dewy Defeats Truman.

    21. Re:Honestly by zifn4b · · Score: 1

      How do you feel about Russia meddling with the elections?

      You mean when the Russians gave the American people accurate information that America's own leaders were trying to hide? Is that the "meddling" you are referring to?

      Does it really make any difference? The term "honest politician" is an oxymoron is it not? For the idealists, isn't the politician you're searching for as rare as a unicorn? Finding discrepancies in what politicians say is like shooting fish in a barrel.

      --
      We'll make great pets
    22. Re:Honestly by zifn4b · · Score: 1

      You don't really believe that Putin has the best interests of the American voters in mind, do you?

      I challenge you to show me any politician or political leader that doesn't have a bias towards some special interest or another. In that context, your question is irrelevant. Your question should be re-phrased as: Who has the best interests of the American voters most in mind? Everyone of a reasonable amount of intelligence is meta gaming. Show me someone in this space that isn't. You know why you can't? Because those that don't play the game well get kicked from the game. You can have all the disdain for the game you like but you'll be sulking in a corner like a little kid.

      --
      We'll make great pets
    23. Re:Honestly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fucking ignorance, repeating the nonsense you've heard with no proof.
      You know, the guy who owns the servers in Russia has loudly proclaimed that he KNOWS it's not of Russian Hack origins, he has the logs, and NOBODY has bothered to ask him who rents his server space and who logged through it when the hacks where executed.
      So, honestly, you're a fucking twat.

      I think anyone is permitted to try and influence elections. If your case is so weak that an external person can fuck up your candidacy with THE TRUTH, then your candidacy wasn't really worth shit, was it? I'm just glad I don't have the right to vote, cause then I might have to actually listen to all this shit. As it stands, it's a tragicomedy of little intrinsic value and I'm tired of the partisan whining and lying.

    24. Re: Honestly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you have a politician who has expressed an interest in acts of war against you upon taking office, you have to do opposition research. Hillary is straight up dangerous to the lives of millions.

    25. Re:Honestly by painandgreed · · Score: 1

      How do you feel about Russia meddling with the elections?

      You mean when the Russians gave the American people accurate information that America's own leaders were trying to hide? Is that the "meddling" you are referring to?

      True, but how do we know that Russia will be fair and balanced?

  2. We are all tracking the reality of things, right? by HBI · · Score: 4, Interesting

    When the polls close, typically, in a US state, precincts start tabulating and releasing the data to a Secretary of State or similar state official. Then, the results are released via a web site. This process is not fast, though it is much faster than it once was. The bottom line is that it takes hours for most states to get all the precincts accounted for to the 99% mark. 100% is not going to happen election night, as absentee ballots are not counted at that point. The early vote mostly will be accounted for, but may not be separately broken out, depending on the state.

    Google is going to have to wait the same as everyone else.

    --
    HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
  3. But, that's not accurate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    More and more people vote by mail. Also, not all polls are mechanized to the point where all ballots are counted immediately. The real, official results can take days. If a race is close the actual winner may not be known until then.

  4. They need to be really, really careful... by Sooner+Boomer · · Score: 2

    There are some states, (i.e. Florida panhandle) that span two time zones. In at least one recent election (Bush/Gore?) the TV pundits called the race before all the poles in the state (both time zones) had closed. It was claimed that this illegally discouraged voters. They risk running afoul of U.S. election laws if something like this happens.

    --
    Chaos maximizes locally around me.
    1. Re:They need to be really, really careful... by telchine · · Score: 1

      TV pundits called the race before all the poles in the state (both time zones) had closed.

      What have Polish people got to do with it?

    2. Re:They need to be really, really careful... by Sooner+Boomer · · Score: 1

      What have Polish people got to do with it?

      I'm sure you've heard the old joke about the science fiction writers who conducted an examination of Polish survey methods? Called "Poul and Pohl's Pole poll poll."

      --
      Chaos maximizes locally around me.
    3. Re:They need to be really, really careful... by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Google uses published nothing more. I don't think they can fall afoul of those laws.

  5. Re:We are all tracking the reality of things, righ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Google is going to have to wait the same as everyone else.

    No, no, no, Google's election results are binding because Internet!

  6. As much as I want to object, this is normal by rickb928 · · Score: 1

    Most states publish results as they are tabulated and recorded, providing these to media outlets. A long time practice.

    And then the media will decide how to describe these results. That's the objectionable part.

    Rumor is that exit polling data will be distributed before all polls close nationwide, which is somewhat of a departure form tradition, but predictable, since it's fairly obvious the media has tried to influence the vote, and why stop now?

    --
    deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    1. Re:As much as I want to object, this is normal by mi · · Score: 0

      Most states publish results as they are tabulated and recorded, providing these to media outlets.

      Whatever most States do, it is enough for one (or two) of them to be sufficiently close to warrant a recount or a legal action, and the national results may be delayed by days and weeks.

      Unless, of course, the fix is so in, even any of the above eventualities will not matter. Given Google's being deeply and solidly in tank with one of the candidates, this may be more probable than is healthy for the democratic process...

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  7. Google has been highly involved by CanEHdian · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Yes, from the Podesta emails we've seen how "highly involved" they are with the Clinton campaign.

    --
    When the copyright term is "forever minus a day", live every day like it's the last.
    1. Re:Google has been highly involved by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      So what's the end game here? Say Clinton wins, some infographics and tweets appear proving it was rigged, Trump refuses to concede. What is going to happen, what are you going to do?

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    2. Re:Google has been highly involved by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We know what you're going to do, either way: continue harping on American politics as if your opinion on the matter carried any weight at all. Sheesh, you're worse than the political fans over here. Why don't you tend to your own house before meddling in our affairs??

    3. Re:Google has been highly involved by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "what are you going to do?"

      Grumble and bitch online and go to work as normal. That's all that ever happens

    4. Re:Google has been highly involved by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      After Oregon courts sent the message that heavily armed white guys can do what the hell they want and basically get away with it, anything is possible.

  8. Will only help in non-West part of US by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 2

    Washington State, Oregon, and most of California votes by mail or in early voting.

    All the votes in WA are legal if postmarked Tuesday or dropped at a free drop box location by 8 pm PST. Most of those won't be counted until Saturday at the earliest (Friday is Veteran's Day).

    Luckily for you, over half of WA has already voted, 40 percent of Oregon has already voted, and similar results in California, but technically, you can't call it until November 20th at the earliest.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    1. Re:Will only help in non-West part of US by Penguinisto · · Score: 1

      Was thinking the same thing (Oregon resident here).

      Then again, at least in Oregon, they only need count votes from the counties of Multnomah (Portland), Marion (Salem) and Deschutes (Bend). Not like the rest of us in Oregon have any real influence or notice (except in the travel brochures, but you know...)

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    2. Re:Will only help in non-West part of US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everyone already knows how those states are going to vote (or already voted) anyway.

    3. Re:Will only help in non-West part of US by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      There is zero chance that Washington state tips the election one way or the other. It's a pretty safe bet.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    4. Re:Will only help in non-West part of US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Add Washington Co too. Clackamas Co, for a good laugh sometimes. (Multnomah, Washington and Clackmas Cos are the 3 most populated counties in Oregon).
      Besides Portland Metro cities (all in those 3 counties), the 3 other largest cities are Eugene, Salem and Bend. Eugene is interesting - "blue" core, but quite red on the edges and Lane Co. Salem is the capital.

      Sorry, rest of Oregon. Come up with better candidates than Dennis Richardson or the other quacks y'all somehow manage to find, and maybe you'd get some people to cross over. Your ads trying to use a few liberal-ish memes was interesting this year, but...

      But that person would have to be someone like Tom McCall, so that isn't gonna happen again.

    5. Re:Will only help in non-West part of US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No different than the midwest. Illinois and Chicago are nothing a like.

    6. Re:Will only help in non-West part of US by Sowelu · · Score: 1

      Interestingly, at least one WA county warned that due to high mail volume, they might not be able to postmark everything that was mailed close to the election in time. If you haven't got it in by now, make sure you put it in a ballot drop box instead.

    7. Re:Will only help in non-West part of US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is zero chance that Washington state tips the election one way or the other. It's a pretty safe bet.

      Zero?

      Half of the people I know are voting for Bernie as a write in or for Jill Stein.

      You never know.

    8. Re:Will only help in non-West part of US by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Washington state has a history. They will 'find' as many votes for Hillary as they need.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    9. Re:Will only help in non-West part of US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then they're idiots -- at least the ones writing in Bernie. Write-in votes aren't even counted.

    10. Re:Will only help in non-West part of US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Half of the people I know are voting for Bernie as a write in or for Jill Stein.

      Half of the people you know are idiots.

      http://www.kiro7.com/news/loca...

      Write-in votes for individual candidates are only hand tallied if the total number of write-in votes may be enough to make a difference in the outcome of the race.

      That's literally throwing your vote away.

    11. Re:Will only help in non-West part of US by PopeRatzo · · Score: 0

      Half of the people I know are voting for Bernie as a write in or for Jill Stein.

      So, your mom is voting for Jill Stein?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    12. Re:Will only help in non-West part of US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, rest of Oregon. Come up with better candidates than Dennis Richardson or the other quacks y'all somehow manage to find, and maybe you'd get some people to cross over. Your ads trying to use a few liberal-ish memes was interesting this year, but...

      I'm disappointed Pierce is polling so low. He's the best candidate to run for the GOP in almost 20 years. Demographics make this a blue state, but it would be nice if it were at least closer. It's hard to get Salem to pay attention to us when the democrat candidate can win just courting Portland, Eugene, and Bend.

  9. Re:Google very helpful by tripleevenfall · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I like that Google is doing this, but I predict that there will be some hand-wringing from people who don't realize how this works.

    Often times certain parts of a state report earlier than others, different sorts of people vote early in the day and late in the day, and this can cause states' results to fluctuate a lot during the night. It could look like Candidate A is winning all day long, only for B to overtake at the end.

    I feel the same way about being able to trust the media as any thinking person does these days, but there is something helpful in the expert analysts that are hired by media outlets to make projections during the night. They know how individual precincts trend and what the early returns might portend.

    I'm guessing there will be some hand-wringing online about some state where soandso was winning big until The Pentavorate hacked the servers and swung the results huge at the 11th hour.

  10. Re:We are all tracking the reality of things, righ by Gen-GNU · · Score: 1

    Although the practice has been stopped after the 2000 election, it used to be common place for network television to call results of elections before the polls even closed. This was done based entirely on exit polls and previous polling data. After the debacle in the 2000 election where Florida was called for Bush (before the polls closed), then back to undecided (I think after the polls closed), then to Bush again, then (if I remember correctly) Gore, the Easter Bunny, Elmer Fudd, and finally, "we have no idea"... all of which left a bunch of people very upset before they even got into the issues of the "butterfly ballot".

    Google can have the same data that the networks used to have, but can wait to post it until 1 second after the polls close. Which is technically following the rules, but is still a bad idea. One of the main issues that people had in Florida was that the state was called while the western part of the state still had polls open, and some reports surfaced of people leaving the polls and going home after the state was called, since their vote didn't matter any more. You can debate the validity of those reports, but it is possible that people could still be in line at polls after the closing time, and see the results on their phones leading to exactly the same issue as 2000. In more contested districts, it is more common to have longer lines at the polls, which can mean that people technically vote after the poll close times, if they arrived before that time. People waiting in line and giving up based on speculated information, like what Google will be providing, is exactly what happened before.

  11. Re:We are all tracking the reality of things, righ by Penguinisto · · Score: 1

    It does lead to a question... are they going to project/call individual states for Kodos or Kang before we get to that 99% mark, like most cable TV networks do?

    --
    Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
  12. Live by dohzer · · Score: 1

    Missing word: Live

  13. Google? No bias here. Nope none at all. /sarcasm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just disregard that Mark Cuban was asked to be a personal guest of Hillary Clinton, favors CNN as a credible news source, has been directly involved with Podesta/DNC, and Google has fudged search results to favor her over the course of this campaign.

  14. The election could be over by 6PM Pacific... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

    If Hillary wins Florida, the election is over.

  15. Re:We're all tracking the reality of things,right? by telchine · · Score: 1

    In more contested districts, it is more common to have longer lines at the polls, which can mean that people technically vote after the poll close times, if they arrived before that time. People waiting in line and giving up based on speculated information, like what Google will be providing, is exactly what happened before.

    If this is true - and they'll call the result when there's still enough people in line to change the result - then shame on Google. They've gone from organizing the world's information to predicting (and influencing) the future.

  16. Re:We're all tracking the reality of things,right? by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

    If this is true - and they'll call the result when there's still enough people in line to change the result - then shame on ABC/CBS/NBC. They've gone from organizing the world's information to predicting (and influencing) the future.

    FTFY - For the old timers who remember the Three Networks in the pre-24/7 news cycle, pre-Internet era.

  17. Daddy needs a new pair of shoes by PopeRatzo · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The gamblers have already called the election:

    https://electionbettingodds.co...

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
    1. Re:Daddy needs a new pair of shoes by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      John Stossel is a gambler?

      He is a democrat reporter.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    2. Re:Daddy needs a new pair of shoes by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      John Stossel is a gambler?

      He is a democrat reporter.

      John Stossel is not a Democrat. He's been a far-Right libertarian-type Republican for as long as I can remember. Not only was he a reporter for Fox, but he still has a blog over at Townhall.com, one of the largest Republican websites.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
  18. Re:We're all tracking the reality of things,right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    If this is true - and they'll call the result when there's still enough people in line to change the result - then shame on Google. They've gone from organizing the world's information to predicting (and influencing) the future.

    Great. Now people aren't even reading the fucking title:

    Google Will Display Election Results As Soon As Polls Close

  19. Re:Google very helpful by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 2

    Polls don't start to report until all of the polls have closed. What happens is that the media are conducting exit polling (asking people as they leave the polls who they voted for) and are reporting that before the polls close.

  20. Re:We are all tracking the reality of things, righ by HBI · · Score: 1

    Google should only show tabulated votes, not anything else. The exit polls are temp college kids who are walking around with clipboards taking instant feedback from people at the polls. There is so much skew in this data - year after year - that it's fundamentally useless except for one thing - watching how many people go in and out of the precinct. Republicans don't like to be polled and i'm sure that's not the only demo that feels that way.

    --
    HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
  21. Re:Google: in the tank for Hillary by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

    For the last week Google has been harassing me every I look: Youtube, my phone, my tablet -- "do you know where to vote?" "look up your polling place?" etc... etc... etc...

    Lucky you. I got 400+ political emails asking for my money over the weekend.

  22. WE MUST by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 2, Funny

    Build a wall around The Google, to make the cyber GREAT AGAIN! We will make the Internets pay for it! Google is part of rigging, the Second Amendters must do something! FOR GREAT JUSTICE!

    1. Re:WE MUST by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Regardless of the outcome of the election, we need to build a 50 foot wall around Trump's primary residence, and make him pay for it.

  23. Re:We are all tracking the reality of things, righ by HBI · · Score: 1

    If they do, I don't really object. The votes are in. They are subject to being wrong, but if they use the right kind of trained people, the errors will be uncommon.

    --
    HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
  24. FL 2000 by HBI · · Score: 1

    Also, remember, they called the election before the Panhandle closed its polls - most of the state is ET, but the Panhandle is CT. The number of voters deterred is debatable, but almost assuredly there was more than one.

    --
    HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
  25. But she probably won't by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 1

    Nate Silver is predicting that Trump will win Florida.

    He also says Hillary is one state away from losing the election (ie - if even one D state flips to an R, she loses).

    It's a close race - I'm looking forward to seeing the results.

    1. Re:But she probably won't by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 2

      Nate Silver is predicting that Trump will win Florida.

      If Trump wins Florida, he will need to win Ohio (went to Obama in 2008 and 2013) and Pennsylvania (went Republican in 1988). If he fails to win all three states, his chances of becoming POTUS is slim to none.

      He also says Hillary is one state away from losing the election (ie - if even one D state flips to an R, she loses).

      Hillary starts off at 268 electoral votes and has multiple paths to win. Trump starts off with 205 electoral votes and has to run the table to win Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania.

      It's a close race - I'm looking forward to seeing the results.

      That may be true for some states. Hillary will probably win in a landslide overall.

    2. Re:But she probably won't by Sowelu · · Score: 1

      If one state in her firewall flips, AND no toss-ups go to her, sure.

    3. Re:But she probably won't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Five-thirty-eight BRIEFLY showed Florida as a Trump state yesterday, but it's back to light blue today. The margin is still very thin, though.

    4. Re:But she probably won't by h33t+l4x0r · · Score: 1

      As of this moment Florida is 54% blue and I expect that to go up. It was around 77% blue before the Weiner emails and it's headed back there now that she's cleared.

    5. Re:But she probably won't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ever notice that it's ALWAYS a close race? Why is it never a blowout? Almost as if it's carefully set up that way, so that the voters think they had an influence on the outcome.

    6. Re:But she probably won't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fox news isn't a great place to look for polling analysis. Neither is any news site.

      This year we've got this new beast called politics-as-entertainment - It's so big that it's pulled NFL viewership down 20% since last year. News outlets have financial interest in presenting the notion of a close race because it increases ratings.

      There's a number of polling aggregate outfits now, including 538. Nate was the big name last cycle because he brought aggregate analysis to the table. This year it's about who's aggregate analysis is better. Some people think 538's models might not be as good this year due to the unusual nature of the election but we'll see in a day or two who's right.

    7. Re:But she probably won't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hillary will probably win in a landslide overall.

      This comment will haunt you tomorrow. LOL.

    8. Re:But she probably won't by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      This comment will haunt you tomorrow. LOL.

      Why would my comment haunt me? It's an educated guest based on history and statistics.

    9. Re:But she probably won't by cfalcon · · Score: 1

      > Hillary starts off at 268 electoral votes

      Press F5 to refresh map.

    10. Re:But she probably won't by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Press F5 to refresh map.

      Trump pulled a miracle by running the tables (Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania) and breaking the Democratic firewall (Wisconsin).

  26. Re:We are all tracking the reality of things, righ by Gen-GNU · · Score: 2

    Yes, they will, but that's not really a bad thing. You can give accurate results well before the 99% mark in almost every election. Certain districts have a very repeatable voting pattern (meaning a district will vote nearly all republican or democrat in every election), and you can get voter turn out numbers well before results are counted. In addition, polling data, exit polls, and statistics can give you a prediction, and if the first 15% of the results are following the pattern, you can say with a reasonable amount of mathematical certainty that the rest of the results will follow. As most races are not decided by only a few hundred votes, it's not even an interesting math problem...

    As long as the results are not posted until after everyone has had a chance to vote, it really doesn't matter. Google (or anyone) could wait until 30 minutes after the polls close, and no one is left in line, and declare that New York has been won by Jill Stein. While that would almost certainly be incorrect, it wouldn't impact the results of the election, as no one is still voting. It would make for an interesting night of TV, but otherwise, who cares what the result predictions are? The only thing that matters is what is certified by the state official in charge of certifying elections.

  27. Curiously by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Curiously, the total money bet favors Clinton, while the total number of bets favors Trump.

    In a situation where everyone has exactly one vote, it's not clear which measure has predictive power.

    1. Re:Curiously by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Curiously, the total money bet favors Clinton, while the total number of bets favors Trump.

      When the FBI director made his announcement 10 days ago, the number of bets that Trump will win went up dramatically. Like most of the Clinton scandals, the announcement failed to turn up a smoking gun.

    2. Re:Curiously by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Informative

      Curiously, the total money bet favors Clinton, while the total number of bets favors Trump.

      As something of a gambler myself, I think I can explain.

      The payout on the Trump bet is greater because he's going off at long odds due to his underdog status. People who bet long-shots tend to do so with smaller amounts, whereas people making big bets are more likely to play the chalk. Hedges are always smaller than the primary wager.

      In a situation where everyone has exactly one vote, it's not clear which measure has predictive power.

      Given the small number of people who bet on elections, I would caution against reading anything into the total number of wagers on either candidate. It would be like picking a winner based on the number of people at their rallies.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    3. Re:Curiously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We don't know whether there was a smoking gun or not, only that they dropped it. I'm sure Comey wants to live to see December.

    4. Re:Curiously by breeze95 · · Score: 1

      Curiously, the total money bet favors Clinton, while the total number of bets favors Trump.

      In a situation where everyone has exactly one vote, it's not clear which measure has predictive power.

      Which do you believe is more predictive (1) big money bets (i.e. smart money...using Wall Street terminology) or (2) the preponderance of bets? My experience in finance is that big money bets on a stocks/bonds, etc are usually indicative of the long term prospect of those financial instruments. I wouldn't bet against big money.

    5. Re:Curiously by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      We don't know whether there was a smoking gun or not, only that they dropped it.

      After 30 years of investigations, no smoking gun was ever found to convict the Clintons in a court of law.

      I'm sure Comey wants to live to see December.

      He may be out of the job in December, but I'm sure Fox News will pick him up as a Clinton expert.

  28. Re:We're all tracking the reality of things,right? by telchine · · Score: 1

    If this is true - and they'll call the result when there's still enough people in line to change the result - then shame on Google. They've gone from organizing the world's information to predicting (and influencing) the future.

    Great. Now people aren't even reading the fucking title:

    Google Will Display Election Results As Soon As Polls Close

    Great. Now people aren't even reading the fucking parent comment

    In more contested districts, it is more common to have longer lines at the polls, which can mean that people technically vote after the poll close time

  29. Re:We're all tracking the reality of things,right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or you didn't read the OP:

     

    which can mean that people technically vote after the poll close times, if they arrived before that time.

  30. Max Headroom redux by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 1

    Wish I could remember the old Max Headroom bit about the top two candidates negotiating a plausible election result for network 66.

  31. Responsible citizens don't need help voting by mi · · Score: 0

    Google has been harassing me every I look: Youtube, my phone, my tablet -- "do you know where to vote?" "look up your polling place?" etc... etc... etc...

    Simply put, responsible citizens do not need such help discharging their duties. We know, there is a vote, we know where it is. We've registered to vote long ago and made arrangements with baby-sitters etc. to visit the polls — or requested absentee ballots.

    But such folks tend to vote Conservative (or should I say KKKon$ervative?), so, for the Illiberals to win, they need to prod the less responsible with signs, TV-commercials (ranging from "Chose or Lose" to "Vote or Die"). Such people need help registering to vote — and some even need to be reassured, they would not be prosecuted for voting illegally (a claim, Snopes bizarrely called "false").

    Throughout human history, people have fought and died for the right to vote — world-wide. Whoever does not cherish that right already, should not be encouraged to take part in the country's governance.

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  32. Re:Google very helpful by mrchaotica · · Score: 3, Informative

    Often times certain parts of a state report earlier than others, different sorts of people vote early in the day and late in the day, and this can cause states' results to fluctuate a lot during the night. It could look like Candidate A is winning all day long, only for B to overtake at the end.

    Even worse, the differences in reporting times aren't necessarily random, but can be determined by things like actual vs. expected turnout or urban vs. rural precincts, which can correlate with party. It's entirely possible for, say, a bunch of rural Republican precincts to report early while a bunch of urban Democratic ones don't have their votes tallied until well into the night (or vice-versa).

    --

    "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  33. What's the difference? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The results are disastrous for USA either way, so they might as well spell out "Disaster" right now.
    It will be fun reading feminists praise Hillary if she wins though, despite her dealings with the same corporations that take a shit on equal wage, her very positive and happy dealings with regimes that treat women like garbage in the middle-east, and her tendency to choose her ideals and beliefs depending on trending stats rather than actual principled belief as her very flexible leanings showcase over the past 2 decades, and her full-blown support of Bush Jr.'s foreign politics.

    I'd honestly prefer Hillary to win. It will be a paradox. The symbolic first female president who also tainted the idea of female presidents at the same time for future generations.

    1. Re:What's the difference? by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      The symbolic first black president who also tainted the idea of black presidents at the same time for future generations.

      FTFY - Same complaint in 2008 and 2012. Obama did a fine job despite Republican obstruction. I'm sure Hillary will too.

    2. Re:What's the difference? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Republican or even democrat obstruction doesn't exist, it's called corporate obstruction. That's the first dumb-dumb-smoke you need to clear out of your eyes.
      Obama didn't do anything spectacular that wasn't already in the works before he came to power, so in the aspect that he didn't fuck anything up but let the system roll by itself can indeed be interpreted as "doing fine".
      Hillary however has all the support from the corporations, banks, and the establishment. She has support by the parties that enable and fund your "republican obstruction", and also the parties that democrats usually make "Occupy" protests against, environmental protests against, and such shit.
      Most importantly, she has support of the same anti-encryption and pro-surveillance entities who have all the blackmail power they need over your politicians whether on the left or on the right to character assassinate them a thousand times over if they don't abide. Even a simple browsing history going public can be destructive to politicians.
      Obama had anti-war sentiments. Hillary had pro-war sentiments and every supporting claim and supporting act from her was the same shit Obama fought against,
      so you using Obama as an argument is kind of pointless despite Obama's questionable support for her which defies his own causes and beliefs that he spoke about. The only reason he supports her is because the other party is Trump, while their belief systems can't be more worlds apart.

      So you might need to make a double take on this whole thing and purge your emotions and ideological jerking while at it, since you are in the middle of a fucked up shitstorm, as is your nation assuming you are American.

    3. Re:What's the difference? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Oh a fine job for sure. Question is a fine job for who?

    4. Re:What's the difference? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Syrians have been ecstatic w/ Obama's work. He also did a great job of continuing Bush's legacy of murdering random people globally, w/ the occasional terrorist killed. He did a wonderful job of fixing immigration, i mean 1/3 'majority' of republican obstruction for 2 years really set that one back. Believe in fantasies all Obama did was make G.W. look like he wasn't a total failure, reset relations all around the world and destroy any stability in many burgeoning spots. On the plus side Defense industries love Obama more than they loved Chen^k^k^K^K er I mean bush. Feel free to find the sarcasm it is in there somewheres.

  34. Bad. Very bad. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This sort of thing is horrible. Why are large multi-national corporations having any say in the US political process? This is very dangerous. The problem is, as the one thing the movie "Sneakers" got right: The world now operates on the perception of reality. Even if Google reports an incorrect count people will believe it. Especially the silly millenials who's life revolves around Facebook and Snapchat (equally horrible companies for trying to change governments).

    It's as if the whole concept of a "mining town" is back again; except without the benefits of even being an employee. Google says "Jump" and the people will say "how high." I really want all this nonsense off my lawn.

    1. Re:Bad. Very bad. by Namarrgon · · Score: 1

      Why are large multi-national corporations having any say in the US political process?

      When have they not? Who do you think delivered the election news in the past? At least these days there's a much wider spread of multi-nationals involved with election information, so individual entities have less influence overall.

      if Google reports an incorrect count people will believe it

      Perhaps, same as with Facebook and Twitter and CNN and Fox News etc etc. But since no counts are reported until all polls are closed, it won't affect the result.

      --
      Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
  35. Re:We are all tracking the reality of things, righ by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Google is going to have to wait the same as everyone else.

    Only if the election is really close. That is unlikely.

    Here is a quick cheat sheet:
    If Donald wins in Pennsylvania, Hillary is in trouble.
    If Hillary wins Florida, she will likely win the election.
    If Hillary carries North Carolina, she almost certainly will win the election.
    If Hillary wins in Ohio, she will likely win by an Electoral College landslide.

    No other states matter.

  36. wtf? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why would I trust a corporation with specific financial interests tell me what an election outcome is? There are public entities tasked with the release of this information as plainly as can be.

  37. If you get exit polled - LIE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you get exit polled - LIE TO THE POLLSTER!!!.

    Please. We don't need depressed voter turnout in western states.

    1. Re:If you get exit polled - LIE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Breaking News!

      Gary Johnson wins exit polls across country by landslide!*

      *Election results may vary, exit polls are subject to many variables.

    2. Re:If you get exit polled - LIE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you realise that if enough people do what you recommend, the exit poll mismatch from the ballot count will trigger an accusation of fraud. Is that what you're looking for?

  38. Re:Google very helpful by tsqr · · Score: 5, Informative

    What happens is that the media are conducting exit polling (asking people as they leave the polls who they voted for) and are reporting that before the polls close.

    Maybe a decade and a half ago, but not anymore; at least not legally. The Representation of the People Act of 2002 made it a crime to report exit poll results before a state's polls have closed.

    All the polls in a state have the same closing time, but polling places stay open until all the people in line at closing time have had a chance to vote. So, some votes get cast after "official" closing time, and after some precincts begin reporting results.

    (2) Each individual precinct reports results when the count in that precinct is complete. This, not exit polling, is why the election night news coverage always goes like "In Florida, with 30% of the vote counted ..."

  39. Re:Google very helpful by ADRA · · Score: 2

    Click-bait is click-bait.

    Unless there's clear cut discrepancy with clear evidence, I prefer to believe that Google's interpretation of data isn't inherently 'political', or 'racist' or 'insert-other-bad-thing'. Instead, its regurgitating back signals that people are generating creating a cyclically re-enforced trend.

    A general model:
      - Google sees 10 pro-ABC articles, and 10 anti-ABC articles.
      - Web searcher searches for ABC.
      - 51% of searchers click on the anti-ABC pages, and the 49% click on pro-ABC pages.
      - Google's algorithm ranks these pages (the anti-ABC pages ahead nominally).
      - Web searcher searches for ABC.
      - 55% of searchers click on the anti-ABC pages, and the 45% click on pro-ABC pages (Since there are fewer pro-ABC pages at the top of the search listings).
      - Rinse and repeat.

    --
    Bye!
  40. Re:Google very helpful by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

    To be fair, according to the gif (bottom right), that site is Rep' oriented, or at least anti-Hillary.

    --
    Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
  41. Re:Google very helpful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The article cited is a little light on facts, or content in general. A single page saying "It's rigged!"

    The autocompletes can be attributed to the samples fed into the algorithm by other users searching.

  42. Re:Google very helpful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    A totally unbiased news source I'm sure.

    From that site's front page:
    "But the outcome of Election Day 2016 was planned down to the last devil’s detail eight years ago in a long forgotten pact between two of America’s most corrupt public figures, Barack Hussein Obama, Hillary Rodham Clinton and their greedy, gruesome global masters."

    Shit like this gets +3. LOL I come back to slashdot just to laugh.

  43. Don't care by p51d007 · · Score: 2

    I'm voting early in the morning. When I get home from work, I'm not going to be sitting on the edge of my seat, biting my nails hoping candidate A, beats candidate B. Personally, I think the entire system is so screwed up, it won't matter who wins. Career politicians just care about their own cushy little deal they have. I'm going to attempt to go about my life, and try to survive whatever happens.

    1. Re:Don't care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cannabis for President

  44. Re:We are all tracking the reality of things, righ by AuMatar · · Score: 2

    Actually Trump needs to pretty much win every swing state to win. He needs Florida and Ohio and North Carolina and Arizona. There's only 1 or 2 small ones he can fail to win... or he has to win in a state that hasn't voted republican for president in decades. Demographics just don't favor the republican party and are getting worse. Its actually harder now as Virginia is fairly solidly blue (where 12 years ago it was red) and North Carolina is red leaning purple (where it was red). The growth of urban centers in both states are pushing the states into the blue column, while the only state trending red that way is West Virginia.

    --
    I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
  45. Re:Google very helpful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's a wonder that Google have to wait for the polls to close before posting the results ... ;)

    At least our "greedy, gruesome global masters" have apparently decided to spare us horror of a Putin^H^H^H^H^HTrump presidency.

  46. I wonder if this will make it harder by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    to rig the election. Then again we're already seeing lower early voter turn out among blacks in N.C. which was pretty much predicted by the (then GOP) folks running the state, so I'm not hopeful. :(

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:I wonder if this will make it harder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wouldn't you also have predicted black turnout to be a bit higher for a black president?

  47. Re:Google very helpful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Unless there's clear cut discrepancy with clear evidence

    Evidence?! Don't be so naive, the Illuminati doesn't just leave evidence lying around. This is so big that facts only confuse: if you refuse to rely on your imagination you'll never get to the bottom it!

  48. Re:We're all tracking the reality of things,right? by k6mfw · · Score: 1

    FTFY - For the old timers who remember the Three Networks in the pre-24/7 news cycle, pre-Internet era.

    back in 1980 on television when Carter conceded election to Reagan before the polls closed in California.

    --
    mfwright@batnet.com
  49. Russia loves you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How do you feel about Russia meddling with the elections?

    Vlad Putin and Julian Assange have our best interests at heart. After all most of the leaked emails and documents revealing outrageous criminal behavior were genuine weren't they? So it's not really "meddling". The Kremlin simply wants the American public to cast an informed vote.

  50. Re:We are all tracking the reality of things, righ by evilviper · · Score: 1

    Most everything you've said is wrong:

    Polls say Hillary can win even without PA.
    Hillary doesn't need Florida to win, either.
    Hillary doesn't even need North Carolina to win, though one of those 3 is necessary. PA is heavily in her favor, and she's ahead in the other two as well.

    Trump needs to win all THREE above listed swing states (which are polling against him) to even stay alive, and that's assuming he wins every other close state, too.

    See:
    http://projects.fivethirtyeigh...

    --
    Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  51. Re:We are all tracking the reality of things, righ by HBI · · Score: 1

    Thinking AZ is a swing state is a tell tale that you are trusting polls with bad demo mixes. Out of the four you mention, precisely zero are going to Clinton. The election day mix in Florida is +16 Trump. The same in Ohio is +8 Trump. You should check out the CNN article about the North Carolina vote and how Trump is significantly ahead of Romney 2012 - who won the state, while Clinton is significantly behind.

    --
    HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
  52. Will Google Count Obama's Non-Citizen Votes? by Baldrson · · Score: 0

    Obama, being interviewed on mitunetwork.com was asked if illegal immigrants had to fear being deported because they voted in the US election tomorrow. His response: "When you vote, you are a citizen yourself.

    1. Re:Will Google Count Obama's Non-Citizen Votes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Poorly cut, yes. But did POTUS say that illegals should vote - no! He encouraged citizens with family members who are not to vote to make their voice heard. I know it's hard since everyone is shouting constantly, but actual fact has no business taking a back seat to this baloney of half-truths being pumped out.

  53. Re:We are all tracking the reality of things, righ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ah yes, a tell tale is quoting fivethirtyclinton.com like it's a reputable organization.

  54. Re:We are all tracking the reality of things, righ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    While it's true that AZ will probably not go blue this time around, it's been far closer than most predicted. At Trumps lowest poling it looked like there was a shot.

      The HRC campaign created a pretty effective "50 states" strategy and the small investment in AZ paid off pretty well. (Presumably because Trump was pretty good at antagonizing minorities, of which there are plenty in AZ)

    I don't know where you get your information but as of Mondaynight absolutely no high quality poll or polling aggregate has trump 16 points ahead in FL. Nearly all have HRC ahead.

  55. Re: sum of human knowledge by hackwrench · · Score: 1

    The problem is that the sum of human knowledge is both the truths and mistruths that are told and while that information is there the metadata to determine which is which is either conspicuously absent, or has the same problem with misinformation as the higher/lower level layer.

  56. how can google be trusted at all? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    After fixing search results to hide political trends, how can google be trusted at all? How do you know what they are hiding from you? They have become corrupt too.

  57. Re:We are all tracking the reality of things, righ by HBI · · Score: 1

    Not 16 points ahead, +16 on those intending to vote on Election Day. HRC was about 0.3% ahead in the early vote last I checked. In Florida, the Republicans vote on Election Day mostly.

    In Ohio, same deal but +8 Trump.

    Check the CBS/Yougov poll from today for both states, you'll see the numbers there, buried in pages and pages of other stuff.

    The CNN article in question about NC is on the front page of RCP.

    --
    HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
  58. Re:We are all tracking the reality of things, righ by HBI · · Score: 1

    The only polls worth anything at this point are the latest ones - the last few days. Everything older than a week is useless.

    --
    HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
  59. Re:We are all tracking the reality of things, righ by HBI · · Score: 1

    I don't blame you for feeling this way, but...

    I can't believe i'm doing this because I have been a huge critic of Nate Silver this year, particularly what he did during the primaries. However, Nate does not do poll demographic adjustments. And the polls he has been getting have all (well, almost all) been essentially conditioned on a 2012+ electorate. Meaning a 2012 plus assumed demographic shifts based on census numbers. There are two problems here. One is that we don't do yearly censuses, so a lot of the drift that is assumed is just that ...assumed based on the 2010 numbers. This is a recipe for error. Second, there is an assumption that the demoes that showed up for Obama vs Romney would continue at the same levels. This is wrong - we can see that now. Black vote is down, Hispanic up, old people way up, independents up, Republicans up, Democrats down.

    So i'm saying that the topline numbers in the polls are shit. Therefore, Nate Silver is working with bad data. To his credit, he realizes that there is a problem and he is hedging strongly - not convinced at all Clinton is going to win. He is right. So, therefore, we shouldn't shit all over him until he does something wrong again.

    --
    HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
  60. Re:We are all tracking the reality of things, righ by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

    Polls say Hillary can win even without PA.

    If Hillary loses Pennsylvania, then the polls are WRONG. Brexit level wrong. So many other states will likely break the "wrong" way too. She will be in trouble.

    Hillary doesn't need Florida to win, either.

    She doesn't need it, but Trump does. So if she takes it, she will likely win.

    Hillary doesn't even need North Carolina to win

    If she takes NC, then her vote is even better than her support in polls, and she will likely cruise to a strong victory.

  61. Re:Google very helpful by Darinbob · · Score: 1

    And that worked out so very well during Bush v Gore, right?

  62. Re:Google very helpful by Darinbob · · Score: 1

    I'd be happy if they just wanted one full week before releasing the preliminary results. It would at least give people who vote in the west or later in the day some confidence that their vote is actually counted before the media declares what the outcome is.

  63. Believe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wonder whether anybody, except the Clinton voters, still believes Google.

  64. Re:Google very helpful by DRJlaw · · Score: 1

    The Representation of the People Act of 2002 made it a crime to report exit poll results before a state's polls have closed.

    Who on earth moderated this as informative? There is no such thing as the "Representation of the People Act of 2002," unless you happen to be living in India.

    There is an informal agreement among U.S. media outlets to hold back exit polling results until the polls close in a state -- which, incidentally, Fox News broke in 2014 in certain respects.

    There is a constitutional amendment you may have heard of that sets a really, REALLY high bar for any law which would prevent the news media from reporting information. It is completely legal to report exit poll results before a state's polls have closed. The proof: the linked article.

    Your rebuttal: point to a U.S. federal or state law, by title or code section, that says otherwise. Go...

  65. Early reporting skews voting by VABEast · · Score: 1

    Any reporting of voting results should be withheld until all districts, including Hawaii and Alaska, have closed their polls.Early reporting in the east coast states can effect the later closing polls to the west.We just have to get over being an instant gratification society when it comes to elections. Stay up and wait for the results or wait for the morning news.Let the media use exit polls to gain insight into the results.

  66. The darkness comes... by vel-ex-tech · · Score: 1

    Filter error: You can type more than that for your comment.

    *submits again*

    Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.

    *tries to submit again*

    Slow down cowgirl! You have to wait 60 seconds before posting again. 59. 58. 57. 56....

    *tries to submit again*

    Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are the actual fucking candidates on my ballot?

    This can't really be happening!

    *checks ballot*

    Damn it. I was hoping it was just a sanity effect. You know like when

    CONTROLLER 1 DISCONNECTED

  67. exit polls will be wrong this year though by johncandale · · Score: 1
    I love how they can announce the winners 30 seconds after the polls close, but it takes them weeks to actually finish counting, especially for ballot measures and such and especially for absentee voters . It's all based on exit polls of course. But here is the problem, a lot of people might be embarrassed about certain choices this year, and it's already well known people lie to survey takers. So how can you really know what the results are when everyone expects the answers within hours. Also keep in mind, people who vote late in the day vote different from people that vote early, absentees tend to vote different too.

    So what happens when a vote is really close in a state but it takes them 2 weeks to finish counting? You can't predict that with compete certainly

  68. exit polls by johncandale · · Score: 1

    exit polls should be illegal, just wait for the legal count. Exit polls are all well and good when they are right, till the day they are wrong, then it's hell

  69. Re:We are all tracking the reality of things, righ by gumbi+west · · Score: 1

    Unless you have something called a model. They're wrong, but some are super useful. It's cool.

  70. Re:We are all tracking the reality of things, righ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Google is going to have to wait the same as everyone else.

    Only if the election is really close. That is unlikely.

    Here is a quick cheat sheet:
    If Donald wins in Pennsylvania, Hillary is in trouble.
    If Hillary wins Florida, she will likely win the election.
    If Hillary carries North Carolina, she almost certainly will win the election.
    If Hillary wins in Ohio, she will likely win by an Electoral College landslide.

    No other states matter.

    For our overseas readers, each state is an all or nothing for the electoral votes: If you win that state, you get all of the electoral votes from that state (unless the members of the electoral college "buck"). An example of the power/weakness of this system: If Al Gore had taken his home state of Tennessee in 2000, then he would have deprived Bush of those 9 electoral votes, received them instead, and Florida would not have mattered. Fun. I glossed over some details here, but that's the gist of it.

  71. Fail. by backslashdot · · Score: 1

    Dixville Notch results have been out for well over 30 minutes, yet Google doesn't display it.

  72. Re: We are all tracking the reality of things, rig by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fuck the polls, and fuck Google.
    What are the bookies in Vegas giving on each candidate? That's your best source of info. Or just go to bed and read in the morning.

  73. Re: Google very helpful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Polls are open until the early morning in some places and it can take days to count provisional and mail in ballots. If its close we may not know for a while.

  74. Phuk Guggle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    too snoopy for their own damn good

  75. Predictions: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1) Google will get at least part of it wrong
    2) Google will be accused of bias
    3) Google will be defended by the dems
    4) Google will apologize, claiming technical errors, and acknowledging the failures the dems claimed were not failures
    5) Google will make an additional contribution to the Clinton Foundation

  76. Re:We are all tracking the reality of things, righ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You spelled "immigration" wrong.

    Labour in the UK pulled the same trick. They opened the doors to vast numbers of Muslim immigrants deliberately because they would vote Labour. They even discussed this openly. The traitorous scumbags openly brought in a replacement population to vote for them AND TOLD US WHAT THEY WERE DOING.

    The only difference is that your Democrat leaders are bringing in Mexicans and don't state it openly why they are doing it.

    White American's voting for Hillary are turkeys voting for Christmas. Males voting for Hillary are even worse... she has a coven of dykes slavering over the chance to make Title 9, rape and DV even more abusive towards mens' basic rights.

  77. Re:We are all tracking the reality of things, righ by KozmoStevnNaut · · Score: 1

    Muslims account for 4.4% of the population in the UK.

    Shut the fuck up with your bullshit conspiracy theories, dumbass.

    --
    Eat the rich.
  78. google hillary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    wikileaks showed that google is part of the clinton campaign + he donated millions to their campaign. don't expect objectivity lol (like 99% of the mainstream media whores)

  79. Re:We are all tracking the reality of things, righ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dude, Read the model's math. Silver accounts for the fact polling error isn't independent. If it were, Hillary is over 90% likely to win instead of 2:1.

    It's almost like you're not the smartest person in the room.

  80. Re:We are all tracking the reality of things, righ by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

    Just don't think it can't happen. Don't make the mistake a lot of British people did with Brexit, making a protest vote or not bothering at all on the assumption it wouldn't matter. It did matter.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  81. Re:Google very helpful by JackieBrown · · Score: 1

    Doubting the electoral process and its integrity is a threat to democracy - per Hillary Clinton

  82. Re:We are all tracking the reality of things, righ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually he was completely accurate. It was a plan Labour had and they executed it to the letter. Eastern Europe joining the EU and Blair not implementing any migration controls (unlike France, Germany, Netherlands,...) was a bonus. There are millions of muslims in the UK and they are ONLY voting Labour.

  83. Surely they mean the popular vote. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We will have to wait for the election some time yet.

  84. Re:We are all tracking the reality of things, righ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    By "Brexit level wrong." I take it you mean correct?

  85. google hillary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    don;t expect google to be unbiased, they fully support the hillary campaign, have engaged in bias and donated millions to the clinton campiagn

  86. Re:We are all tracking the reality of things, righ by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

    By "Brexit level wrong." I take it you mean correct?

    No, the Brexit polls were wrong by a big margin. They predicted Brexit losing by over 5%. It won.

  87. Re:Google very helpful by jdavidb · · Score: 1

    The Representation of the People Act of 2002 made it a crime to report exit poll results before a state's polls have closed.

    So yet another infringement of free speech.

  88. Re:We are all tracking the reality of things, righ by evilviper · · Score: 1

    If Hillary loses Pennsylvania, then the polls are WRONG. Brexit level wrong. So many other states will likely break the "wrong" way too. She will be in trouble.

    No, the polling in PA can prove to be wrong without any other state being affected by whatever issue there is in PA.

    if she takes it, she will likely win.

    She will likely win without it, so you're stating absolutely nothing, here. Sky is blue, water is wet, etc.

    If she takes NC, then her vote is even better than her support in polls, and she will likely cruise to a strong victory.

    No, same fallacy as PA above. Local issues can affect voting in NC without affecting others like a contagion. In short, you've said nothing of value at all.

    --
    Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  89. Re:We are all tracking the reality of things, righ by evilviper · · Score: 1

    the small investment in AZ paid off pretty well. (Presumably because Trump was pretty good at antagonizing minorities, of which there are plenty in AZ)

    Nonsense. Trump was well-ahead in AZ for most of the race (even with his racist comments and supporters), and ONLY fell behind after the open-mic scandal broke, and John McCain repealed his endorsement. The race-baiting may have helped things, but it was the sexual assault that made a huge enough difference to change the color.

    --
    Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  90. Re:We are all tracking the reality of things, righ by evilviper · · Score: 1

    For our overseas readers, each state is an all or nothing for the electoral votes:

    Except for Nebraska and Maine.

    you get all of the electoral votes from that state (unless the members of the electoral college "buck").

    That's not a real concern. "Since the Civil War, all states have chosen presidential electors by popular vote. This process has been normalized to the point that the names of the electors appear on the ballot in only eight states". "Faithless electors have not changed the outcome of ANY presidential election to date" and "twenty-four states have laws to [prevent and/or] punish faithless electors."

    "On four occasions the Electoral College system has resulted in the election of a candidate who did not receive the most popular votes"

    --
    Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  91. Re:Google very helpful by lsatenstein · · Score: 1

    East voting reports should not be presented until the polls close in Hawaii, or California. Early results from New York could influence voting results in California up to three hours before the polls close.

    Integrity is more important than profits during a voting day.

    Ditto for CNN, FOX, ABC, NBC, CBS, etc.....

    --
    Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
  92. Re:We are all tracking the reality of things, righ by hawk · · Score: 1

    > After the debacle in the 2000 election where Florida was called for Bush (before the polls closed)

    You remember incorrectly.

    Florida was called prematurely for Gore while the polls were still open in the panhandle.

    This probably cost Bush a staggering number of votes in the panhandle by the effect of the losing party not going to the polls, while the winning party jumps in and still triumphantly votes (which in turn would have prevented the debacle). The panhandle is as rich in Republican votes as Palm Beach in Democratic.

    The classic case is Carter's early concession in 1980, which is generally believed to have cost his party several house seats in the west. (there are now some folks contesting this conventional wisdom, but I'm skeptical of their arguments).

    (FWIW, from my first election through that one, I never used anything *but* a butterfly ballot. When I put a slide of the ballot up on the overhead for my statistics class, the voice from the back of the room asked, "Are they morons?" for supposedly being confused).

  93. Re:We are all tracking the reality of things, righ by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

    No, the polling in PA can prove to be wrong without any other state being affected by whatever issue there is in PA.

    Possible, but extremely unlikely. The big question is black turnout in Philadelphia. It that is lower than expected, the same factors will likely depress black turnout in places like Miami, Richmond, Raleigh, etc.

    Right now, it is 68F and sunny in Philadelphia. That should help Hillary. In fact, the weather is nice across most of the East Coast and Midwest, and Democrats do better when turnout is higher. She should have a good day.

  94. Re:We are all tracking the reality of things, righ by KozmoStevnNaut · · Score: 1

    Less than 3 million, out of a population of 65+ million.

    Do you have any proof that they all vote labour?

    No? Thought so.

    --
    Eat the rich.
  95. Re:Google very helpful by cfalcon · · Score: 1

    Yup. And let ABC or an anti-ABC super PAC chime in, and you can have it dance however you like.

  96. Re:Google very helpful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I guess it would be, if there actually were such a thing in the US as The Representation of the People Act of 2002, which there isn't.

  97. Re:We are all tracking the reality of things, righ by evilviper · · Score: 1

    Right now, it is 68F and sunny in Philadelphia. That should help Hillary. In fact, the weather is nice across most of the East Coast and Midwest, and Democrats do better when turnout is higher. She should have a good day.

    It would seem the weather wasn't good enough...

    --
    Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant