Google Surfaces Fake News About Election Results (theverge.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Verge: Last week, Facebook faced criticism that the platform's habit for surfacing fake news contributed to the election of Donald Trump -- a claim Mark Zuckerberg denied. This week, Google faces a similar problem, as its search algorithm surfaces fake election results. As Mediaite's Dan Abrams first reported, when you search "final election numbers" or "final vote count 2016," the first result in Google's "in the news" box is from a scrappy-looking Wordpress blog called 70 News that appears to be run by one person. The article, posted on November 12th, features the headline "FINAL ELECTION 2016 NUMBERS: TRUMP WON BOTH POPULAR ( 62.9 M -62.2 M ) AND ELECTORAL COLLEGE VOTES ( 306-232)HEY CHANGE.ORG, SCRAP YOUR LOONY PETITION NOW!" First, the numbers in this post are inaccurate. Though millions of votes have yet to be counted, but Clinton has already been shown to be leading the popular vote by a sizable margin. Current counts have her ahead by around 668,000 total votes, with some polling experts projecting Clinton will ultimately rack up a 2 million-vote lead. Second, the writer of the 70 News post claims that the source material for the article is "Twitter posts," specifically, this tweet from a user named Michael. Michael, on the other hand, is sourcing an article from the ultra-conservative tabloid USA Supreme, which argues that Clinton might win the number of votes "counted" but will not win the number of votes "cast" because of ignored Republican absentee ballots. (Michael also believes that Trump has been singled out by God to be president of the United States, a conspiracy theory popular with 4chan users who believe that Pepe the Frog is a reincarnation of an ancient Egyptian deity.) And yet Michael -- by way of 70 News, by way of Google -- has become the sole source for a story squatting at the top of Google's search results. 70 News has since updated its post with a single line admitting that CNN is showing different numbers -- the headline and the body of the post remains the same.

Comments

this is just gaming the system.

[Anonymous Coward]

google search results are so fucking easy to troll.

Re:this is just gaming the system.

[tripleevenfall]

This fool's fake news should serve notice to all that the power of Google Search Trolling is absolute!

Re:this is just gaming the system.

[Big Hairy Ian]

It just the "Famous French Military Victories" thing all over again but this time it's not even funny

Bait

[Anonymous Coward]

4chan users who believe that Pepe the Frog is a reincarnation of an ancient Egyptian deity

this is bait.

Re:Bait

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't come down to where you worship and knock the priest's cock out of your mouth so please kindly leave my beliefs about Lord Kek alone.

Yeah, there's inaccurate news

[Anonymous Coward]

It's an algorithm, and this headline is a total spastic mess.

Re:Yeah, there's inaccurate news

[Anonymous Coward]

It's an algorithm, and this headline is a total spastic mess.

Indeed. Surfaces are made my Microsoft, not Google, and any fake news on a Surface, is the fault of the software it is running, not the tablet manufacturer.

Re:Yeah, there's inaccurate news

[__aaclcg7560]

Surfaces are made my Microsoft, not Google, and any fake news on a Surface, is the fault of the software it is running, not the tablet manufacturer.

When Microsoft made a deal with the NFL to provide Surfaces for use on the sidelines, the sports broadcasters on TV and radio kept calling them iPads. The power of free advertising.

Re:Yeah, there's inaccurate news

[Potor]

You do realize that "surfaces" here is a verb (granted, an awkwardly used verb)?.

Re: Yeah, there's inaccurate news

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it's a noun. Google Surfaces fake news (out) about election result.

Re:Yeah, there's inaccurate news

[Anonymous Coward]

You do realize it says "Surfaces" not "surfaces". Since when do we capitalize a verb.

This is just an annoyance I have with all of these web "news" sites in capitalizing every word in the headline. It actually makes it difficult to read sometimes trying to work out what they're meaning to say.

Re:Yeah, there's inaccurate news

[Anonymous Coward]

> This is just an annoyance I have with all of these web "news" sites in capitalizing every word in the headline. It actually makes it difficult to read sometimes trying to work out what they're meaning to say.

A while ago I read about web pages text formatting. Capitalizing every word seems to be a news heading style which is prevalent in many publications. Style guides may advise against that, though. It seems that is not the case here. I remember people of European ascent mentioning they don't have such tradition on continental Europe.

And if all that is really true, creimer has a point. I think he has; he's trolling to make a point. This is but one of English idiosyncrasies.

Re:Yeah, there's inaccurate news

[Dutch Gun]

People lie on the internet, and algorithms don't know any better. Fake-news at 11.

Re:Yeah, there's inaccurate news

[I'm New Around Here]

My clock only goes to 10.

Damn metric time keeping.

Re:Yeah, there's inaccurate news

[Dutch Gun]

Just refuse to acknowledge daylight saving time and you should be fine.

Re:Yeah, there's inaccurate news

[infolation]

DST. It's, like... one... louder...

Re:Yeah, there's inaccurate news

[EricTDuckman1414]

Indeed! Submarines and aquatic creatures surface, Google returns search results. Either whoever wrote this has a poor understanding of colloquial English as spoken in the U.S., or it's another example of what an out-of-touch old fogie I have become.

And how is this not a legitimate point?

[sabri]

From the summary:

which argues that Clinton might win the number of votes "counted" but will not win the number of votes "cast" because of ignored Republican absentee ballots.

If it really works that way (and I could not find information to prove or disprove that theory), they might have a point.

And suspicion is reinforced by their (The Verge) obvious attempt to discredit the messenger by noting (Michael also believes that Trump has been singled out by God to be president of the United States). And that attempt to ridicule is totally unnecessary.

Re:And how is this not a legitimate point?

[Anonymous Coward]

There are some places that don't go to the trouble of counting absentee ballots if there aren't enough of them to make a difference to the outcome of a particular election. It's just wasted expense.

Whether there are enough of those to swing the popular vote nationwide is another question -- one which is entirely irrelevant because the votes in the Electoral College are overwhelmingly on Trump's side.

Re:And how is this not a legitimate point?

[peterd11]

The absentee ballots may not be counted right away if they can't possibly affect the election results. However, the final certified totals do include all absentee ballots. See http://help.vote.org/article/8...

Re:And how is this not a legitimate point?

[msauve]

Why does it matter - that's just a pissing contest. The actual election is held in the Electoral College, which has built-in checks and balances.

States get 1 Elector for each Representative. That number is directly related to the state's population and the number of associated Electors will very closely match the popular vote. Each state also gets 1 Elector per Senator. That number is equal for all states.

Consequently, the result of the Electoral College vote is a balance between the popular vote, and the number of states which a candidate's Electors won.

Those claiming it's somehow unfair for the winner of the popular vote to not be the winner in the Electoral College are either ignorant, or ignoring that the system is working exactly as intended. It's not a fluke, or a rounding error, or a problem with how votes are counted. It's by design. By the same design which created a House of Representatives with directly reflects the population, and a Senate which represents States. It's checks and balances, to prevent populous states from overwhelming the less populous ones. It's a Federal government because the US is a federation of states, not a direct democracy.

You want to change to a direct vote for President? To be consistent, you'd better be pushing to get rid of the Senate, too, where the imbalance between population and power is even more pronounced.

Your candidate got 1% more of the popular vote? Well, the other candidate won in 50% more of the states.

Re:And how is this not a legitimate point?

[cyberchondriac]

I'd read that historically, absentee ballots tend to run something like 67% republican, 33% democrat. Or was it 63% - 37%? Anyway, they're roughly 2/3 republican since so many are military, plus overseas businessmen on trips. A sizeable chunk also comprises exchange students, likely to be mostly democrat votes. Considering that absentee ballots are not normally counted unless they number greater than the margin of difference between candidates in a state, that could still represent a very large number of votes, an assumed 2/3 of which would be pro Trump.
I find it unlikely that Hillary's popular vote count will rise nearly as much as Trump's if all the absentee ballots are counted.

And anymore, I read little or nothing from Verge, HuffPost, Vox, Mic, Salon, or Mother Earth Jones exactly because of the passive-aggressive to full-out bias. By the same token, I don't trust sites like Youngcons with facts much either, but at least they identify as the party they support, so you can sort of expect it.

Re:And how is this not a legitimate point?

[whoever57]

Those claiming it's somehow unfair for the winner of the popular vote to not be the winner in the Electoral College are either ignorant, or ignoring that the system is working exactly as intended

Or, they are correctly noting that the Electoral College system is unfair. Just because something is "working exactly as intended" doesn't make it fair.

Re:And how is this not a legitimate point?

[sabri]

The absentee ballots may not be counted right away if they can't possibly affect the election results. However, the final certified totals do include all absentee ballots. See http://help.vote.org/article/8...

You, good sir, are hereby awarded the most helpful comment of the day on slashdot award.

Re:And how is this not a legitimate point?

[DRJlaw]

If it really works that way (and I could not find information to prove or disprove that theory), they might have a point.

But it doesn't really work that way, and if you applied even an iota of critical thinking, you'd realize why it can't.

Did you vote on Tuesday? Did your ballot really only have a single multiple choice item for President of the United States? Because mine didn't. My had president, senator, representative, state senator, state representative, city council member, state supreme court justice (multiple), municipal court justice (multiple), family court justice (one or two), and multiple local millages.

My wife's absentee ballot, being that she lives with me and all, was identical. Which means that whether Trump defeated HRC by several hundred thousand votes or a few hundred, there were many other races where her vote was relevant to the outcome, and the presidential election was not the end-all-be-all of whether all those little bubbles would be scanned by the county's equipment.

Your inability to find governmental information concerning this myth is as ridiculous as this Michael nonsense.

"The media often will report the projected outcome of the election before all of the ballots are counted. In a close election, the media may report that the outcome cannot be announced until after the absentee ballots are counted. However, all ballots, including absentee ballots, are counted in the final totals for every election - and every vote (absentee or in-person) counts the same."

The ability to project a winner in a top-of-ballot race does not eliminate the need to count absentee ballots in all other races.

And suspicion is reinforced by their (The Verge) obvious attempt to discredit the messenger by noting (Michael also believes that Trump has been singled out by God to be president of the United States).

Tell you what, why don't you actually telephone your county board of elections as ask them yourself rather than settling for discrediting the messenger only when it suits you.

Re:And how is this not a legitimate point?

[ClickOnThis]

From the summary:

which argues that Clinton might win the number of votes "counted" but will not win the number of votes "cast" because of ignored Republican absentee ballots.

Did you actually look at the website where this came from? It doesn't exactly project an aura of credibility.

If it really works that way (and I could not find information to prove or disprove that theory), they might have a point.

Yes indeed, he (Michael) might. But until some more credible source reports on this story, I'm quite comfortable with ignoring it.

And suspicion is reinforced by their (The Verge) obvious attempt to discredit the messenger by noting (Michael also believes that Trump has been singled out by God to be president of the United States). And that attempt to ridicule is totally unnecessary.

That's not The Verge. That's Michael's own tweet, per TFS. Michael is discrediting himself. The Verge is just reporting what he has done.

Re:And how is this not a legitimate point?

[AthanasiusKircher]

Just because something is "working exactly as intended" doesn't make it fair.

Furthermore, there's no evidence that the system is "working exactly as intended." I've pointed this out numerous times in the last week, but the Electoral College basically NEVER worked as intended by the Founders. They created this system to deal with a collection of 13 individual states and no major political parties. The Electoral College was created because the assumption was that most voters would vote for a candidate from their home state, leading to a slate of a bunch of random candidates, no one with more than 10-20% of the vote. Aside from any qualms some of the Founders may have had about direct democratic votes in general, getting only 10-20% of the vote would not have resulted in an adequate "mandate" to govern.

Hence the Electoral College, where electors were required to vote for two people, one of whom had to be NOT from their home state. The idea being that the "native son" from the home state would get one vote, and the other would be for someone with regional consensus. The top 5 such candidates would float to the top, and Congress would make the final selection.

Within 12 years, that system failed due to the emergence of political parties, since that system didn't differentiate vote for President or VP (the most votes just became President, and the runner-up became VP). Hence the 12th amendment, which separated the votes for VP.

And yet still the Electoral College did not function as originally imaged by the Founders, since they imagined a group of educated folks with essentially free choice to elect the best person in their own view. Instead, more and more states started moving toward a "general ticket" structure where you'd just have a slate of partisan Electors who were designated to vote for their party candidate. By the 1830s, that was pretty much the norm everywhere.

So no, the system is NOT working as intended, and never really has. It was an idealistic and abstract system constructed before anyone had a clue what the electoral landscape of the new nation would look like -- and it basically became irrelevant (and redundant) the moment political parties emerged.

Re:And how is this not a legitimate point?

[ClickOnThis]

Your link is run by Alex Jones, an alt-right radio host and conspiracy theorist. Per the wikipedia article:

Jones has been the center of many controversies, including his statements about gun control in the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. He has accused the U.S. government of being involved in the Oklahoma City bombing, the September 11 attacks and the filming of fake Moon landings to hide NASA's secret technology. He says that government and big business have colluded to create a New World Order through "manufactured economic crises, sophisticated surveillance tech and--above all--inside-job terror attacks that fuel exploitable hysteria".

Forgive me if I don't take him too seriously.

Re:And how is this not a legitimate point?

[swb]

I guess I have a couple of counter arguments:

1) Congressional delegations aren't winner-take-all. Many states have split congressional delegations, why not split electoral votes? There are several schemes for this which seem to address the principal problem of population skew to a handful of states and cause the electoral college system to better represent the popular vote without totally abandoning the electoral college system.

2) The funny math of electoral votes skews the political process towards a handful of states that are either volatile or have huge electoral counts. That being said, some "swing" states that get attention may get ignored due to renewed emphasis on popular vote, but the upside is that candidates will pay more attention to a larger population.

3) Why have a national election for President at all if its a Federal government? Why not simply make it more parliamentary and have Congress or state legislatures elect the President? In theory you could do this without changing the *powers* of the President, so as to retain the Congress/President balance of power. State legislatures used to elect Senators.

Re:And how is this not a legitimate point?

[Anonymous Coward]

That is the important note. Do illegal votes count? They should not and I am HIGHLY suspicious why all of southern Texas was blue. Remove the illegal votes. Trump wins the popular vote.

Re:And how is this not a legitimate point?

[AK Marc]

Pointing out something is unfair is "ignorant"? Everyone here knows exactly how it works, and why. But even those that wrote the Constitution knew they screwed it up. Those that voted on the 12th Amendment to change some aspects of the EC were some of the same people that wrote the Constitution in the first place.

With the large urban migration (and Blacks now being 5/5th of a person), it seems reasonable to consider that the demographics of the country have changed sufficiently to re-examine the validity of the EC. I fail to see how a position like that is "ignorant" and instead, it seems you dictate "truth" and insult anyone who questions it. People with your mental illness should stay off the Internet.

Re:And how is this not a legitimate point?

[msauve]

Please explain, in your view, why Electors were given for Senators, and not just Representatives. Also why, if there should be no winner of a majority in the Electoral College, each state receives an equal (i.e. one) vote in the House "run-off" election.

Re:And how is this not a legitimate point?

[I75BJC]

Absentee ballots are not counted in some jurisdictions if they could not change the outcome of the race. Eg., 30,000 absentee ballots uncounted where the candidate won by 50,000 votes. This makes sense because absentee ballots are usually paper ballots and recording the votes is labor/time intensive.

Re:And how is this not a legitimate point?

[Anonymous Coward]

the result of the Electoral College vote is a balance between the popular vote, and the number of states which a candidate's Electors won.

I disagree, and here's why.

In order for a bill to pass Congress, it must pass both the House and the Senate, separately. In order words, it must get at least 218 votes in the House, and at least 51 votes in the Senate.

Furthermore, if 1/3 of a state's Representatives vote for a bill, and 2/3 vote against it, that first third does not automagically convert to being against the bill.

The Electoral College smooshes those two counts together, with a winner-takes-the-state methodology. It says "I need just 270 votes. I don't care if they all came from the House, and I don't care if some of those votes got flipped because they were in the minority in their state.".

Your candidate got 1% more of the popular vote? Well, the other candidate won in 50% more of the states.

It is possible for a candidate to win the Electoral College vote with just 51% of 10 states (remember, winner takes all).
California (55) + Texas (38) + Florida (29) + New York (29) + Illinois (20) + Pennsylvania (20) + Ohio (18) + Georgia (16) + Michigan (16) + North Carolina (15) = 276.
The system is not balanced.

Re:And how is this not a legitimate point?

[Anonymous Coward]

And I'll put you in the fucking stupid prick category. Did that change anything?

Whether something is "fair" or not is subjective and just because the founders wanted the president to be selected by the states in a manner that did not distribute the votes according to population distribution does not make it "fair" today, in the opinion of lots of people.

I wonder if the founders even contemplated such huge differences in the populations of states when formulating the electoral college.

Re:And how is this not a legitimate point?

[swalve]

Back in the day, the US was more of a federation of states rather than a single nation. Quite like the EU is now. Each state was a quasi-nation of its own, and the federal government was intended to just sort of administrate that federation. So, the president was voted on by the states, not by the people, because he had basically nothing to do with the wants and needs of the people. He was just a designated treaty signer and funeral-goer. Just as with the congress and senate, the quantity of electors was designed as a compromise between the large powerful states and the smaller states. It was kind of a brilliant compromise, for the time.

Now, however, as a cohesive nation with nationwide media and national parties, the EC does nothing but cloud the election. Frankly, we are kind of past the idea of even having borders. We would much rather our opinions are represented in government rather than our geographic area.

Why is the run-off in a different format? Presumably, they didn't think it would happen very often, and if it did, allocating votes to Congress the same way they did to the EC would result in the same result. One vote per state would hopefully assure a clear winner.

Re:And how is this not a legitimate point?

[ITRambo]

If the Electoral College went away, I'd have to actually vote for a major party candidate when I dislike both. Here in Illinois the Democrats always take the Presidential vote. So, my protest vote would be a throwaway if direct election of the President occurred.

Re:And how is this not a legitimate point?

[ClickOnThis]

All votes are counted, absentee or not. Previous posters provided these useful links:

http://help.vote.org/article/8...
https://www.fvap.gov/vao/vag/a...

Re:And how is this not a legitimate point?

[sabri]

But it doesn't really work that way, and if you applied even an iota of critical thinking, you'd realize why it can't.

It can most certainly work that way. If States indeed choose to count absentee ballots when they can only make a difference in the outcome, that would make some economical sense.

Did you vote on Tuesday?

I did not. I'll have to wait until next time, after naturalization.

Re:And how is this not a legitimate point?

[msauve]

The answer to 1 and 3 is that there is no Constitutional requirement for a vote. The method of choosing Electors is up to the states. If a state wanted to have their legislature, or their Congressmen, or their Governor choose the Electors, they could.

The answer to 2 is that not all states are winner takes all. A couple vote by congressional district, with the 2 "Senate" electors going to the overall winner. But again, that's entirely up to the states, and there's no need for a change at the Federal level needed to change it.

Re:And how is this not a legitimate point?

[msauve]

Claiming something is unfair with no argument as to why, while ignoring how and why the system was designed to be fair is ignorant.

Re:And how is this not a legitimate point?

[Darinbob]

Of course they get counted. What state has laws that allow discarding some votes? They have to be counted before certifying the results. They are not necessarily counted before the news sites predict a winner, but that's a different matter.

This is why a lot of too-close-to-call elections take a few weeks or longer before the result is knows, in some cases the declared winner is not the certified winner.

This is an important point where so many "my vote doesn't count" people forget: the presidential election is just one small part of the larger election cycle. There many more things to vote on, things that have a more direct effect on the voter than the election of a president. Senators, congress, state congress, school boards, judges, propositions, county measures, dog catchers, etc. And yet people still don't bother to vote - we had maybe only half of the eligible voters actually bothering to vote, meaning that Trump really only got 1/4 of the electorate, and Hillary really only got 1/4 of the electorate(and much much less if you only count voters who voted for someone as opposed to voting against someone).

Then of course, *after* the election we have the inevitable protests (don't laugh trump supporters, if trump had lost I guarantee there would have been protests against Hillary). I heard one high school protester saying that she needed to feel like she was doing something about the elections. But the election is over, duh, maybe she should have done someting before it was too late? No point in getting all worked up today about it, all that energy will be gone by the time the next election rolls around in two years (which these idiots will ignore because it's not a presidential election), and in four years they'll bit sitting back and apathetic again.

Re:And how is this not a legitimate point?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's only unfair when you lose. In any case, this is the system in which both candidates agreed to run their campaigns. If it was based on a plurality or majority of total popular votes, the campaigns would have happened much differently with California, New York, and Texas garnering much of the candidates attention and time.

How is that fair to Rhode Island, New Mexico, and Alaska - or any state with small populations?

Sorry but either amend the Constitution, or just shut up already about it. It's not like we didn't have 16 years to accomplish this since the last time.

Re:And how is this not a legitimate point?

[msauve]

That's all an argument for reducing powers the federal government has usurped (Commerce Clause abuse), and giving them back to the states. Let there be diversity between the states, instead of a federal government which forces them all to be (essentially) the same.

And really, you claim "cohesive nation?" Haven't you been paying attention to current events?

Re:And how is this not a legitimate point?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Or, they are correctly noting that the Electoral College system is unfair. Just because something is "working exactly as intended" doesn't make it fair."
Yup

Previous Post:
"States get 1 Elector for each Representative. That number is directly related to the state's population.."
Nope, not as originally set up.
A lot has changed since 1789, and the 3/5 Rule.
"It's checks and balances, to prevent populous states from overwhelming the less populous ones."
The populous States in 1789 with Citizens, White Male Citizens With Property, were to the North. To the South were States with fewer Citizens, White Male Citizens With Property. But they did have certain Property that were used to inflate their numbers and increase their importance. That Property had no say on the matter. Without the 3/5 Rule, the South would not support a Union at all. (Actual details varied from State To State, as they saw fit or unfit.)
The Electoral College became obsolete in 1865, and really obsolete with the passing of the 15th, 19th, 23rd, 24th and 26th Amendments. In the passing of these Constitutional Amendments, the implicit and explicit right of One Citizen, One Vote, Direct Democracy, was made the Law of the Land. All that is left is to get rid of the Electoral College. After all, we have had direct voting for Senators since 1913, with the passing of the 17th Amendment; before then Senators were chosen by State Legislators as they saw fit, or unfit.

There are those who so cling to their blind rationalizations that they deny their own History. But here is the History- Every single time that the Electoral Vote was used to override the Popular Vote, the winner was a Republican: Adams, Hayes, Harrison, Bush, and Trump. That is their History, the Tyranny Of the Minority.
That they so consistently win is not in the least bit fair, and Republicans won't fight fair to keep their special privilege.

Re:And how is this not a legitimate point?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because it means you get a different answer for "who is president" based entirely on where people live. If a few hundred thousand democrats moved from NY and CA to FL, MI, and PA, you get a different answer from the electoral college. The voters haven't changed. The demographics haven't changed. They're simply voting from a different spot in the country.

Any system that gives you a president based on where people happen to be living and not based on who they are actually voting for seems a little backwards.

Re:And how is this not a legitimate point?

[ShanghaiBill]

Pointing out something is unfair is "ignorant"?

Is the World Series unfair? The pennant goes to the team that wins the most games, not to the team the scores the most total runs.

The Electoral College was designed to encourage candidates to appeal to the entire nation, rather than just running up the score in their geographic base.

Re:And how is this not a legitimate point?

[Anonymous Coward]

1) Congressional delegations aren't winner-take-all. Many states have split congressional delegations, why not split electoral votes?

If you do it that way, then you end up with Clinton with 261 electoral votes, and Trump with 258.15 electoral votes, and third party candidates split the remainder amongst themselves. No clear winner according to the constitution, which requires a simple majority of the electoral college. Since the EC would fail to elect a president, the decision would fall to the House and Senate to select president and VP respectively. House would vote Republican, since Republicans have a majority in their House delegations in over 30 states; Senate would vote Republican, since each senator has 1 vote, and there are 54 republicans to 46 democrats.

And so, you have a Trump / Pence presidency still. And if you want to do away with the requirement for a simple majority, then you lose any hope of any candidate ever claiming a mandate, ever. And, you also need to figure out a way of power-sharing so that third party candidates have some influence in the national election, since they'll also be earning a share of the electoral vote. Of course, if you did that, then you'd be looking at coalition governments, and I'm pretty certain that McMullin and Johnson would have probably sided more with the Republican party than they would with the Democrat party, and Stein would have sided more with the Democrats than with Republicans. If you factor those in, you get 19.7 EVs for Johnson & McMullin, and 5.8 EVs for Stein; That breakdown nets you a Trump/Pence presidency, too.

2) The funny math of electoral votes skews the political process towards a handful of states that are either volatile or have huge electoral counts. That being said, some "swing" states that get attention may get ignored due to renewed emphasis on popular vote, but the upside is that candidates will pay more attention to a larger population.

It's only "funny math" when your preferred candidate loses. The point of the EC is to stop candidates from focusing solely on the high-population urban states and areas. If you think that the cities should simply rule by fiat, then great, the EC is "funny math." But if you think that the vast numbers of rural people (a few tenths of a percent fewer people than the people who voted to elect Clinton) shouldn't have an equal voice in federal government, then you might as well come right out and say "two legs good, four legs bad," and be done with it. The point of the election is NOT to have the candidates spend their entire campaign in urban areas, and instead listen to and respond to the concerns of everybody.

Why not simply make it more parliamentary and have Congress or state legislatures elect the President? In theory you could do this without changing the *powers* of the President, so as to retain the Congress/President balance of power. State legislatures used to elect Senators.

They certainly can already. The constitution just says that they must select electors, it doesn't prescribe any particular method by which electors must be selected, or allocated. Of course, making it winner-take-all means that candidates have to pay attention to all the states, and can't just rely on getting "around 50%" of most states, and pushing hard in the high-population areas where they can eke out a few extra percentage points to get the richer prizes of the more populous states.

Re:And how is this not a legitimate point?

[ClickOnThis]

From the very article you linked:

CNN said the report was "unremarkable" and that the network regularly communicates with both Republicans and Democrats when preparing for interviews.

"This is completely unremarkable," a CNN spokeswoman told the Washington Examiner. "We have similar communications with Republicans. When preparing for interviews we are regularly sent suggestions from rival campaigns and political parties, both solicited and unsolicited. Casting a wide net to ensure a tough and fair interview isn't just common media practice, it's smart."

Re:And how is this not a legitimate point?

[MightyYar]

What is "fair"? I suspect the answer depends on who you ask.

Re:And how is this not a legitimate point?

[negRo_slim]

Haven't you been paying attention to current events?

I try not too pay much attention to the narrative the elite controlled media likes to spoon feed us.

Re:And how is this not a legitimate point?

[Anonymous Coward]

> if trump had lost I guarantee there would have been protests against Hillary

You mean like all of the protests and rioting that occurred when Obama was elected? Oh wait.... that never happened. Why would you assume that trump supporters are as whiny and childish as Hillary supporters when that never happened for Obama? Oh sure, there were a handful of morons trying to claim he wasn't edible to be president because of the nationality of his father but that was nothing compared to what's going on right now. To make it even more idiotic is that they're destroying the cities that actually voted for Hillary. That'll show all those trump supporters!

Re:And how is this not a legitimate point?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or, just because something doesn't go your way doesn't make it unfair.

I believe it worked exactly as it should have. A handful of ultra dense cities that let non-citizens vote shouldn't have the complete say for the rest of the country. I have to wonder what the popular vote would be in California if non-citizens were not allowed to vote. In my opinion all of the California votes should be invalidated for election fraud.

Re:And how is this not a legitimate point?

[Anonymous Coward]

"And that attempt to ridicule is totally unnecessary."

It is necessary to show why this individual might spread a fake news story (or stories). If it were just from some random fool who looked up the wrong numbers it would be one thing, but people this fanatical are likely knowingly spreading fake stories to get their way. Its unfortunate that people don't dig a little deeper before putting any stock in these kinds of blatant misinformation campaigns (this presidential election isn't the only election to have had them, but they were more pronounced).

Re:And how is this not a legitimate point?

[cbeaudry]

So... the top 8 or 10 states should have ultimate control over the other 50?

Popular vote means people living in over half the states geographically would have no say in the election.

The EC makes sure realities in different parts of the country are taken into consideration.

What goes for NY might not be what Iowa needs.

Re:And how is this not a legitimate point?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why don't you think your vote combined with Republican voters in your state and other states can counter the Democrats?

Re:And how is this not a legitimate point?

[DRJlaw]

It can most certainly work that way. If States indeed choose to count absentee ballots when they can only make a difference in the outcome, that would make some economical sense.

No, it cannot, because the ballots cover multiple races at each of the national, state, and local levels. Also, various laws are based on percentage thresholds of all persons who, for example, voted for governor in a state (referendum petition signature requirements, for example). Finally, they do not. EVER.

Name your state, and I can cite the state code section that requires the counting of absentee votes after some trivial research. On the other hand, I have no fear that you'll be able to cite even a single U.S. law that permits what you've proposed.

Re:And how is this not a legitimate point?

[Anonymous Coward]

"I have to wonder what the popular vote would be in California if non-citizens were not allowed to vote."
I have to wonder if you were dropped on your head into a pile of moose turds when growing up, and a mistake was made pulling you out.
California does not allow non-citizens to vote.
Here you go, you fucking moose-berry:
http://www.snopes.com/california-motor-voter-act/

Re:And how is this not a legitimate point?

[Anonymous Coward]

From the very article you linked:

http://en.wikipedia.org

lol

Re:And how is this not a legitimate point?

[Anonymous Coward]

Those claiming that the Electoral College system is unfair are saying that the states have absolutely no right to any of their own sovereignty.

Please.

Not to mention, states all have the right to throw their electoral votes how they see fit. There are two states that cast their electoral votes as a distribution of the vote count, the rest are all or nothing. You should probably spend your time trying to get your state legislature to change the way it casts its electoral votes.

On the other hand, you should really spend your time working on the DNC. They minimized their chances of winning this election when they rigged their primaries in favor of Hillary. If only I could have voted for Bernie, instead my vote went to Johnson.

Re:And how is this not a legitimate point?

[LynnwoodRooster]

Funny, we have no e-mails, no proof of such CNN/GOP communications. I mean, if it was done on both sides - then why did CNN fire Donna Brazile as a contributor?

Re:And how is this not a legitimate point?

[ClickOnThis]

Funny, we have no e-mails, no proof of such CNN/GOP communications.

Not really. It was Wikileaks that released the CNN/DNC e-mails. Given the obvious bias Wikileaks has shown to the RNC, I'm not holding my breath to see any CNN/GOP e-mails from them.

I mean, if it was done on both sides - then why did CNN fire Donna Brazile as a contributor?

Apples and oranges.

What was "done" by CNN was communication with both parties to prepare questions for debates and interviews. As CNN said, it was "completely unremarkable."

Donna Brazile, on the other hand, leaked debate questions to her side (the Democrats.) And she quite brazenly said she would do it again. CNN was right to fire her as a contributor, because she abused her position intolerably.

Re:And how is this not a legitimate point?

[Anonymous Coward]

What goes for NY might not be what Iowa needs

Meanwhile, when some of us libertarians point out that this is an inevitable problem with an all-powerful Federal government, we get told to GTFO and move to Somalia.

Re:And how is this not a legitimate point?

[whoever57]

So... the top 8 or 10 states should have ultimate control over the other 50?

No, that would only happen if the votes in the electoral college were distributed purely according to population.

What we have today is a situation where a vote cast by someone in the smaller states has an outsize impact on the presidential election. Moving to a popular vote system would give the people in the smaller states a vote that was equivalent to a vote in a larger state.

Why should the state in which you live affect how much your vote affects the outcome?

Re:And how is this not a legitimate point?

[cbeaudry]

But then the popular vote would make the bigger states more important than the smaller states.

Small swing vote states are that way because they have an electorate that vote on the issues, and sit on the fence between the 2 parties every election.

Many if not all the large states are mostly slanted 1 way. It would be the same with the popular vote.

You do remember that the USA is a republic and that states come first, then the union.

Re:And how is this not a legitimate point?

[Anonymous Coward]

"And if you want to do away with the requirement for a simple majority, then you lose any hope of any candidate ever claiming a mandate, ever." So what? Many of the states, maybe most, run their elections for governor as Plurality Wins. I know Texas does. Rick Perry won the 2006 election for governor with 39% of the vote. No matter what the EC vote is how can anyone who got fewer people's votes than their opponent claim a mandate?

Re:And how is this not a legitimate point?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or, they are correctly noting that the Electoral College system is unfair. Just because something is "working exactly as intended" doesn't make it fair.

Why wasn't that noted *before* the election? Or, they noted something is unfair because they lost? Would it be "fair" if they had won instead?

Re:And how is this not a legitimate point?

[AK Marc]

The people in those locations would have exactly the same vote as everyone else.

Also, you could get rid of the EC and still have the rural bias in place. If a vote from someone in CA is 1 vote, then give someone in MT a vote of 1.00001. That's about right to adjust for the rural bias already there, and mixes the votes such that you don't have a 50.1% in a state give 100% of the states electoral votes, which is the biggest problem with the current implementation of the EC.

Re:And how is this not a legitimate point?

[Anonymous Coward]

I want what you are smoking!

If you believe that California, Texas, and New York will agree on a candidate; then it must be really good shit!

Re:And how is this not a legitimate point?

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone can stand for President, yes? There were more that two people on the ballot this time around, yes? Voting is not compulsory, yes? So you don't have to do anything at all, except make a number of choices, not just one.

Re:And how is this not a legitimate point?

[brantondaveperson]

States aren't people. People are people. If there are fewer people in a state, why should their vote be magnified to compensate?

The other issue with the college, which used to be a democratic institution in its own right, that was voted for, rather than a weird pass-through system - is that it erases large victories in one state, and puts them on an equal footing to tiny victories in another. Win by one vote in a state, and you get all the college votes. Win by an immense landslide - same number of votes.

Re:And how is this not a legitimate point?

[LynnwoodRooster]

What we have is a CNN spokesperson claiming they do it "for others". We have PROOF they do it for the DNC - and NOTHING, not even from CNN, to prove they do the same for the RNC. Oh, and Donna Brazile being tossed for doing exactly what Wikileaks said that CNN did - colluded with the DNC.

Re:And how is this not a legitimate point?

[I'm New Around Here]

> if trump had lost I guarantee there would have been protests against Hillary

You mean like all of the protests and rioting that occurred when Obama was elected? Oh wait.... that never happened. Why would you assume that trump supporters are as whiny and childish as Hillary supporters when that never happened for Obama? Oh sure, there were a handful of morons trying to claim he wasn't edible to be president because of the nationality of his father but that was nothing compared to what's going on right now. To make it even more idiotic is that they're destroying the cities that actually voted for Hillary. That'll show all those trump supporters!

Best autocorrect ever!

Re:And how is this not a legitimate point?

[Anonymous Coward]

Given the obvious bias Wikileaks has shown to the RNC

I find it more likely that WikiLeaks is biased against the US than for the RNC. If the Republicans had fielded a less extreme candidate that wasn't standing on a policy of winding back the clock 50 years on human rights, environment and health, I don't think you would have seen the same level of interference from Assange and co.

Re:And how is this not a legitimate point?

[thegarbz]

This is democracy and your vote does not count the same as mine. /Argument

Re:And how is this not a legitimate point?

[I'm New Around Here]

You are a member of a group that some claim doesn't exist. I'm sure you have seen people say that Sanders could not have won in place of Hillary, because fewer people would have wanted a socialist than a (whatever-the-hell you consider Hillary).

When I've responded that there were liberals/Democrats that couldn't force themselves to vote for Hillary, and sure as hell weren't going to vote for Trump, the Libertarian or Green candidates were acceptable. And not as a "protest vote", but as a "clear conscience vote".

I voted Green myself, even though I disagree with most of their platform. And I sleep like a baby.

Re:And how is this not a legitimate point?

[serviscope_minor]

How on earth did you come to *that* conclusion?

The point is your vote for whoever is tallied up with all the other votes from throughout the country. Being in an always-Democrat state becomes meaningless, because the votes aren't split state by state.

Re:And how is this not a legitimate point?

[serviscope_minor]

The Electoral College was designed to encourage candidates to appeal to the entire nation, rather than just running up the score in their geographic base.

That is simply false: the electoral college was designed to do no such thing when it was originally invented. You are forgetting that political parties were not prevalent at all when the electoral college was designed.

Re:And how is this not a legitimate point?

[jandersen]

Just because the Founding Fathers designed the system in some way, doesn't per se mean that it is a good system; even if they were entirely flawless as individuals, they still had to try to make democracy work in a situation where long distance communication, not to mention computing power, were painfully slow, if I'm not mistaken. So they came up with the best they could with what was at hand, but it seems obvious that now, when we have the ability to communicate almost instantly across continents and are able to handle vast amounts of data, a better system ought to be possible; such as a more direct election process, perhaps.

Re:And how is this not a legitimate point?

[Talderas]

How can it be the best when it's factual incorrect? While many may find cannibalism distasteful humans aren't inherently inedible.

Re:And how is this not a legitimate point?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is the run-off in a different format? Presumably, they didn't think it would happen very often, and if it did, allocating votes to Congress the same way they did to the EC would result in the same result. One vote per state would hopefully assure a clear winner.

There is a clearer answer for why the run off goes to Congress. Note that Congress has always had an odd number of delegates. This is intentional to ensure that there cannot be a tie. The Senate has 2 delegates per state, and is therefore unable to guarantee that there will be no tie should they be tapped to decide a presidential election.

Re:And how is this not a legitimate point?

[Anonymous Coward]

Listen, the electoral college is a system that technically allows a person to become president with as little as 22% of the popular vote. There is no defending a system like that. Maybe a full on popular vote isn't the right approach, but the electoral college as it stands today is complete craziness.

Re:And how is this not a legitimate point?

[Anonymous Coward]

The only unfair thing about the EC is the fact that electors can get away with voting against the population of the state and, at worst, pay a small fine.

The EC is there to make it so EVERY state has a voice. Not just the 13 or so states with the biggest cities and highest population.

We are a republic. A Democratic Republic. The EC is there for a reason. If the Dem's don't like it, that's fine. They can tell their supporters to move to the other states that caused them to lose the election due to the EC and fix the issue.

However, taking away, say, Wyoming's voice just because it doesn't have a city the size of LA in it is asinine.

Re:And how is this not a legitimate point?

[Anonymous Coward]

Take an election of three candidate A, B, and C. Candidates A and B are major parties. In the OP's situation he dislikes both A and B but doesn't want to see B President while he is capable of tolerating A as President. Since B will win his state he votes for candidate C which he prefers. Without the electoral college or if he were in a state with a close election OP would feel forced to vote against B by voting for A instead of voting against A and B by voting for C.

Re:And how is this not a legitimate point?

[meta-monkey]

They know if they brought that rioting shit into the red states we'd deploy Assault Rednecks and Tactical Rooftop Koreans. It would not go well for them.

Re:And how is this not a legitimate point?

[meta-monkey]

Wikileaks has shown no bias towards the RNC. Just disdain for the DNC. I doubt Assange is a Trump fan, but definitely a Hillary hater. And with good reason...I tend to be upset with people who want me drone striked :(

Re:And how is this not a legitimate point?

[I'm New Around Here]

You ever try to clean the shit out of a politician?

Re:And how is this not a legitimate point?

[Anonymous Coward]

This. I have been on the end of much ridicule for "throwing my vote away" when I voted with a clear conscience. Hillary no. Trump heck no. But I refuse to vote for a bad choice.

Re:And how is this not a legitimate point?

[Anonymous Coward]

Geryymandering renders all that high-falutin talk moot.

Re:And how is this not a legitimate point?

[dwillden]

Actually it seems to be working just fine and as designed. The candidate who won the most states won, exactly as designed. It was not meant to be a democratic process but a representative republic process. There is no need to change it. It was never supposed to be a nationwide popular vote. A few Hyperdense cities should not control the politics of this still mostly rural and suburban nation.

Re:And how is this not a legitimate point?

[budgenator]

The original intent was for the several States to be the primary provider of governance, with the Federal Government severely limited in power, and the ability to counts individual votes in a nationwide election was unimaginable in the early US. The Electors was more a representative of the states than a representative of the individual. More of a Parliamentary-ish thingy than a direct democracy; it's very easy for a Democracy to go rogue, a nine hungry cannibals thing.

Re:And how is this not a legitimate point?

[dywolf]

that's the thing: it wasn't designed to be fair, and to say it was is the true ignorance.

Re:And how is this not a legitimate point?

[budgenator]

I think of it as a evolutionary step toward a quasi-parliamentary system, one that still provides a higher degree of continuity in our government.

What might be interesting is having two electors selected on the states popular vote, then the remainder selected based on the congressional district votes.
1. That would still give the smaller States enough disproportionate power to resist being bullied by the bigger states,
2. Bring the Electoral votes more in line with the popular vote,
3. Force candidates to work the whole country rather than focusing on a couple swing states,
4. Might even give third party candidates a few votes to bargain with to establish a coalition.

Right now the real democratic process occurs in the primaries and the party conventions, then we vote on which presents the best solution.

Re:And how is this not a legitimate point?

[whoever57]

The original intent was for the several States to be the primary provider of governance, with the Federal Government severely limited in power, and the ability to counts individual votes in a nationwide election was unimaginable in the early US.

"original intent", that's great, but it's history. What was reasonable and fair a couple of hundred years ago, may no longer be fair and reasonable.

Re:And how is this not a legitimate point?

[dywolf]

as well as an argument for increased strife, fewer and non-universal rights, destruction of land, and even war.

no thanks.
Federalism has proved its superiority.

Re:And how is this not a legitimate point?

[dwillden]

We are not and have never been a direct democracy. A direct democracy will collapse and fail within a few years. The whims of the people are too capricious. Our founding fathers set us up as a Representative Republic for that very reason. And we are still a Representative Republic..

Re:And how is this not a legitimate point?

[Anonymous Coward]

It is not false. The existence of political parties is irrelevant. The point was to have a broad distribution of support rather than only the most populous areas choosing, and supporting, the candidates. There is a good, (IMO), paper about the EC on the FEC site, (www.fec.gov/pdf/eleccoll.pdf). It was updated in 1992, so it's a bit old, but the EC hasn't changed. In the end, I'm not against changing the system for electing the Executive for the better, but I'm definitely opposed to changing it just because some people believe the results were "unfair", or "rigged".

Re:And how is this not a legitimate point?

[MercTech]

Hanging chads anyone?

Re:And how is this not a legitimate point?

[AthanasiusKircher]

There is a clearer answer for why the run off goes to Congress. Note that Congress has always had an odd number of delegates. This is intentional to ensure that there cannot be a tie.

Uh, nope. In the event that there is no Electoral College majority, the vote goes to the House of Representatives, where every STATE DELEGATION gets merely ONE VOTE APIECE. Hence, you'd have 50 votes total, and it is quite possible to get a tie. In the event that the House is unable to come to a consensus before the President is required to assume office, the VP would become President (12th Amendment). In the event that the Senate also deadlocks in voting for VP, the Speaker of the House would become President (20th Amendment, and Presidential Succession Act of 1947).

Re:And how is this not a legitimate point?

[AthanasiusKircher]

Please explain, in your view, why Electors were given for Senators, and not just Representatives.

In "my view"? Well, some of the Founders addressed that point directly. Basically, yes, the number of Electors was proportional to the number of government representatives. So the 2 Senate votes per state were likely added for the same reason that they were represented in the Senate in the first place, i.e., not to drown out the "voices" of the smaller and less populous states. (There was obviously a lot more to the whole Senate compromise to begin with, but the Electoral College numbers were just based off of the total number of reps, so that's an easy question.)

Also why, if there should be no winner of a majority in the Electoral College, each state receives an equal (i.e. one) vote in the House "run-off" election.

Because states were viewed as quasi-autonomous entities before the ratification of the Constitution. It's not unlike how nations vote in the UN or whatever -- the US was originally conceived of as a loose confederation of independent states. The Constitution made it much stronger than the original Articles of Confederation, but the logic of representation still stuck around... again, just as we don't apportion delegates to the UN according to population or whatever today. Each independent nation has a voice. That sort of logic justified the choice of President in event that consensus was not reached from the EC.

Re:And how is this not a legitimate point?

[AthanasiusKircher]

I now see by reading upthread that you were probably trying to see whether I disagree with you. I basically agree with your logic that representation of states was PART of the reason why the EC was apportioned the way it was. But that doesn't mean that it ever FUNCTIONED the way the Founders imagined it would, i.e., with electors basically as informed individuals voting freely for candidates before the era of political parties. Once parties emerged, the system became redundant rather than having any independent function.

If the sole goal of the EC nowadays is to "rubber stamp" the outcome of the popular vote in each state according to whatever scheme the government sets up, then why bother having "Electors" at all? We could just as easily just say each state gets "X votes" and let the governor or the state legislature certify that count.

The fact is the EC doesn't do what the Founders imagined it would, and it never did.

Re:And how is this not a legitimate point?

[Coren22]

Then of course, *after* the election we have the inevitable protests (don't laugh trump supporters, if trump had lost I guarantee there would have been protests against Hillary).

I doubt it, most republicans actually have work to go to.

Re:And how is this not a legitimate point?

[Coren22]

Not that I want to change our form of government, but it seems to work quite well in Switzerland.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:And how is this not a legitimate point?

[Coren22]

If you don't like how the Electoral College system works, why don't you put forth a constitutional amendment and gain support rather than bitching on Slashdot about how unfair everything is?

Google Surface?

[rossdee]

Did Google buy the way overpriced tablet line from Micro$oft?

"Fake" "News"

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you really think someone would do that? Go on the internet and tell lies and claim they are not lies?

Re:"Fake" "News"

[__aaclcg7560]

Otherwise known as the right-wing echo chamber.

Re:"Fake" "News"

[Anonymous Coward]

Otherwise known as the right-wing echo chamber.

Have you not been paying any attention at all this election cycle to the wall-to-wall coronation of Hillary Clinton by CNN, MSNBC, the New York Times, The Washington Post, etc.? Or are you just that much of an idiot? The stupidity of the left-wing voters will guarantee a Trump victory in 2020.

Re:"Fake" "News"

[__aaclcg7560]

Have you not been paying any attention at all this election cycle to the wall-to-wall coronation of Donald Trump by CNN, MSNBC, the New York Times, The Washington Post, etc.?

FTFY - The lame stream media gave Donald Trump $2B+ in free advertising for the last 15 months.

Or are you just that much of an idiot?

As a moderate conservative, I'm well familiar with the right-wing echo chamber. A lie repeated enough times eventually becomes the truth by voters who are too stupid to think for themselves.

The stupidity of the left-wing voters will guarantee a Trump victory in 2020.

As a moderate conservative, I voted for Clinton. I'll probably vote for Michelle Obama in 2020. ;)

Re:"Fake" "News"

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't post here much but cannot stomach this nonsense. You, labelling voters "stupid", immediately revealed your political leaning in this election. I'm usually not much interested in politics, but I'd guess I've read nearly 1000 comments in various places, regarding this election, and I knew you were a Clinton supporter immediately, before you got to the part where that's how you voted.

Other than the poster who says left-wing voters will cause another Trump victory in 2020 by being mentally deficient (??), it's always some claim that the Clinton voters were better educated than the Trump voters. Smart people voted Democrat, you know. I haven't seen any Trump supporters, like me, calling the other side uneducated.

Watch the Congressional hearings surrounding the email / Benghazi affairs, you'll see who is repeating lies. If you don't see, it's you who are stupid. Clinton, with her elitist globalist views, support for open borders AKA " immigration reform", and anti-gun stance, is nowhere near being on the radar for a moderate conservative. Like myself.

Re:"Fake" "News"

[I'm New Around Here]

Calling a candidate a clown, a sex offender, Hitler reincarnate, etc, doesn't sound like free advertising.

Re:"Fake" "News"

[__aaclcg7560]

Calling a candidate a clown, a sex offender, Hitler reincarnate, etc, doesn't sound like free advertising.

Not all free advertising is positive. Not all negative advertising is bad. It certainly didn't prevent Trump from getting elected.

Re:"Fake" "News"

[__aaclcg7560]

You, labelling voters "stupid", immediately revealed your political leaning in this election.

Have you ever stopped to listen to how people talked about politics? I've known a lot of stupid people who can recite Fox News talking points by heart. If I try to correct them, they get very angry. As the bible says: "The person who loves correction loves knowledge, but anyone who hates a rebuke is stupid." (Proverbs 12:1)

Re:"Fake" "News"

[budgenator]

When you say a candidate is a clown, a sex offender, Hitler reincarnate, etc, you have to specify which one for clarity, as it fits both.

What is an expert?

[dontbemad]

...with some polling experts projecting...

Honestly, after this election, I'm surprised anyone takes that phrase seriously.

Re:What is an expert?

[random coward]

My thoughts were "Speaking of fake news!"
How is "Some polling experts think it will grow to be around 2Million" real news but equally random and badly sourced site saying Trump will take the popular vote fake news?

Re:What is an expert?

[Anonymous Coward]

My first thought as well.

"polling experts"

Lol.

Re:What is an expert?

[Cro Magnon]

It's misspelled. X is an unknown quantity. Spurt is a drip under pressure. We do have polling x-spurts.

The popular vote plurality does not matter

[Anonymous Coward]

People in the cities need to realize that in exchange for living so closely packed together their votes are worth less in aggregate than the rest of the country. It's part of the checks and balances that make this republic function. If you don't like it, don't live in the city.

Re:The popular vote plurality does not matter

[ebrandsberg]

And what of the people living in Rural NY State? Won't they be lumped together with the people in NYC? This is a bogus argument.

Re:The popular vote plurality does not matter

[Anonymous Coward]

This is what republicans actually believe.

Re:The popular vote plurality does not matter

[Penguinisto]

It's a bit more complex than you think, and partially untrue.

Take Oregon for example when it comes to federal Presidential/Senate elections: Every rural county in the state could have its population vote 100% for Kodos, but if Portland, Salem, and Bend vote 100% for Kang, then Kang wins, period. (Now the reality is that something like 60% of the rural counties go for Kodos, and 60% of the urban ones vote Kang... and Kang still wins because of aggregate population. The population differential really is that lopsided.) This also goes for state-wide offices such as Governor, Secretary of State, Attorney General, etc.

Now Congressional House elections and state legislature/senate elections are a different story, where your assertion would hold a bit more truth to it.

Has Google ever claimed to be about the "truth"?

[AthanasiusKircher]

TFA closes with:

We are entering a zone where even the hardest of facts become debatableâ in the minds of conspiracy theorists. But Google, you are effectively a computer program with none of that supposed media bias, so Google programmers please do what you can to stop helping them spread lies. It only enhances our increasing distrust in all forms of media. Most important, itâ(TM)s really, really bad for the truth and for America.

While I agree that we seem to be entering into a "post-fact" era, I'm not sure that Google has ever tweaked their algorithm to emphasize TRUTH. Popularity, maybe. Relevance to a particular search term, sure. Number of 3rd-party links to a page, definitely.

But "truth" or "fact"? There has always been crap on the internet, and if this is the first time this person noticed a top hit linking to BS, this person must not spend a lot of time doing internet searches. Not saying I don't wish things were better, but attempting to tweak Google's algorithm to create "true" or "face-based" results is more than a trivial shift in the way they would need to operate.

70 News is a blog

[SpankiMonki]

And very obviously so. I don't know how anyone with half a brain would mistake it for a reputable news site.

Re:70 News is a blog

[Anonymous Coward]

And very obviously so. I don't know how anyone with half a brain would mistake it for a reputable news site.

This *is* the Internet we're talking about here....

Re:70 News is a blog

[slew]

And very obviously so. I don't know how anyone with half a brain would mistake it for a reputable news site.

Which goes to show that a page ranking system based on counting the quality and links a site has doesn't mean it is anything other than that.

If you want pages ranked for some other criteria, you have to design for it. Given many people seek out views that confirm their own views of the world, there's no reason to doubt that the material on this site was "authoritative" (given some definitions of that word), to many of the people that searched for that information.

Authoritative doesn't necessarily mean accurate, it simply means trusted and respected...

Re:70 News is a blog

[Anonymous Coward]

I had a co-worker cite this news this morning. So, either he is an ignorant biased moron (I cannot rule that out as sadly it is likely true) or he was successfully fooled.

Re:70 News is a blog

[Anonymous Coward]

You put way too much faith in humanity.

Re:70 News is a blog

[Anonymous Coward]

It's called Page Rank after the algorithm's creator Larry Page, and is not a ranking of the pages themselves.

Press credentials anyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

Shouldn't news websites require digitally signed press credentials of some sort?
Then the news search engines could simply *ignore* any noncredentialled publishers--or at least classify them correctly as opinion sites.

Re:Press credentials anyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

That sounds like the sort of horrible idea a reverse vampire would promote to prevent valiant internet truth-tellers from exposing their nefarious schemes to the public!

Re:Press credentials anyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course then you would have to be able to trust the organizations issuing the credentials which is no mean thing. The financial ratings agencies S&P, Moody's and the other one proved not so long ago that nobody is infallible. I can't believe that they have suffered no consequences for their part of the financial meltdown.

"Polling experts"???

[PeeAitchPee]

Oh, you mean all the geniuses like FiveThirtyEight and NYT that coronated Hillary months in advance? Yeah, I'll wait to see the real numbers for myself, thanks.

Re:"Polling experts"???

[__aaclcg7560]

You mean the NYT that wrote anti-Hillary stories and praised Trump without fact checking?

Re:"Polling experts"???

[Anonymous Coward]

If she ends up with a 2 million+ vote lead will you change your tune?

Wait. No. Don't bother. I've already got your other rationalizations lined up:

1. Voter fraud

2. City voters deserve less of a vote because they're not real Americans.

3. CTR shills put fluoride in the water and made conservatives vote for her.

4. MAGA! Drain the swamp! Lock her up!

Re:"Polling experts"???

[Woldscum]

3 million illegals voted

http://www.infowars.com/report...

Re:"Polling experts"???

[sbjornda]

coronated Hillary months in advance

Increasingly I am seeing this apparently made-up (via back-formation) word "coronated". What's wrong with the proper English word for this action, which is "crowned"? During a coronation ceremony, the new regent is crowned.

--
.nosig

Re:"Polling experts"???

[fnj]

No proof whatsoever is offered. Take it for what it's worth. Sure, I have my suspicions, too, but thats all they are: SUSPICIONS.

Re:"Polling experts"???

[Anonymous Coward]

Increasingly I am seeing this apparently made-up (via back-formation) word "coronated".

Dictionary.com thinks "coronated" is a real word, but what do they know.

Re:"Polling experts"???

[LynnwoodRooster]

Coronated is a perfectly cromulent word.

Re:"Polling experts"???

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean the NYT that wrote anti-Hillary stories and praised Trump without fact checking?

Yes, dumbass, we all know the main stream left-wing media writes a few token stories that run contrary to the democrat party line. They have to do that to at least pretend some veneer of objectivity. It's the other 95 percent of the time when they were full-on shilling for "Her" that we are referring to. You are such an imbecile I don't know if it's satire sometimes.

Re:"Polling experts"???

[__aaclcg7560]

Yes, dumbass, we all know the main stream left-wing media writes a few token stories that run contrary to the democrat party line.

As we say in California, "What are you smoking and where can I get some?"

It's the other 95 percent of the time when they were full-on shilling for "Herr Trump" that we are referring to.

FTFY - Thanks to the lame main stream media, Trump got $2B+ in free advertising that his campaign didn't deserve.

You are such an imbecile I don't know if it's satire sometimes.

The purpose of Slashdot is to keep me amuse while I'm waiting for a script to finish at work. Thank you for your participation!

Re:"Polling experts"???

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm using liberal tears as my new perfume.

They're practically oozing from my screen.

Re:"Polling experts"???

[Anonymous Coward]

Fucking dictionary.com. Lol.

Try Oxford. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/coronation

Whoops, not there. Coronation is though.

The OP is 100% correct and so are you. It's a made up word. Just like every other word. If you can write it and attribute a meaning to it then it's a real word. It may be redundant. It may be fucktarded. But it's a real word.

Patch my Surface ASAP ..

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparently my Google Surface has been faking news about Trump and stuffs.. What other shady things is this tablet doing behind my back ??

Polls

[Anonymous Coward]

"with some polling experts projecting Clinton will ultimately rack up a 2 million-vote lead"

Have we learned nothing?

In related not-so-news:

[cirby]

On election night, one of those fake news sites had an electoral college map that they were gaming the election with.

For example, they didn't list Georgia as being won by Trump until 100% of the votes were in, even though it was mathematically impossible for him to lose at that point (99% counted, Trump 5% ahead). They showed Pennsylvania as being officially won by Clinton for a while, too, and we know how that turned out. They also held off until much, much past the "can't beat the math" point for other states, when most other sites had already given him the win.

Meanwhile, they listed California and Oregon and Washington State as being won by Clinton before ANY of their election results were counted, at all. This was obviously a way to keep the Democrats from giving up early, just in case.

The fake news site? The New York Times...

Re:In related not-so-news:

[__aaclcg7560]

The fake news site? The New York Times...

If you followed the live chat for NYT, they were very conservative about calling out states and waited for confirmation from multiple sources. Politico updated at a quicker pace. I was switching back and forth between the two.

Re:In related not-so-news:

[Anonymous Coward]

Math shouldn't get in the way of a victory! They were probably just waiting for the dead vote - those guys aren't exactly early risers.

Re:In related not-so-news:

[Solandri]

I visited a lot of election results sites during the night of the election. The New York Times site was by far the best one.

They didn't project results based on exit polls. They projected it based on tallied votes. As each precinct reported its vote tally, it was added to that county's vote count. That was extrapolated to the number of precincts in the county to estimate how the entire county would vote. And the same was done for every county in the state to project how the state would vote. Statistical uncertainties were also calculated, and they had a nifty little confidence graph projecting which candidate was projected to win, how likely they were given the number of uncounted ballots, and what their estimated margin of victory was going to be.

This was a brilliant way to use computers to quickly crunch the overwhelming amount of election results data into a simple human-readable format. It takes all the guesswork out of it - CNN had pundits eyeballing which counties still waiting for precinct returns, and trying to predict the state's outcome based on just those few counties. They thought Pennsylvania might flip to Clinton because the urban areas around Philadelphia still had a large number of precincts not yet reported. But the NYT site showed that there were lots of rural counties which were breaking heavily for Trump yet to be counted. Each county on its own wasn't big enough in population to catch CNN's attention. But the NYT site showed that in total they would easily swamp out the uncounted urban vote, and Pennsylvania would remain Trump's.

With this system, any mis-predictions are simply sampling flukes - precincts with higher-than-average votes for Clinton or Trump just happened to report first. If the NYT continues this format, I will definitely be visiting their site in future elections.

Incidentally, even when 100% of precincts have reported their votes, the state cannot be called if the tally is close enough. There are still absentee ballots outstanding. Those have to be opened up and counted, and could conceivably flip a close election. That's why Michigan is still listed (at the time I'm writing this) as 92% likely to be won by Trump even though 100% of precincts have reported. Trump leads by 13,000 votes, and there are enough absentee ballots still waiting to be counted that statistically there's an 8% chance that they could flip the state to Clinton. Most live news stations don't bother accounting for absentee ballots because it just complicates things and rarely flips a state.

Let me put this simply

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Search Engine vs. Social Media Platform

Google is a search engine. Why would anyone be surprised that 'fake news stories' would get indexed along with the 'real news stories?' Surely the ranking algorithm would deal with these things eventually.

Facebook is a social media platform. They choose to present their users with 'news stories.' So why would you think they have no responsibility to vet the news stories they choose to present to their users.

2. Before vs. after the election

The Google example given in the summary is a post-election story and therefore cannot have an effect on the outcome of the election.

The Facebook 'news stories' were pre-election and seemed to be designed to deify Hillary and vilify Trump in an attempt to effect the outcome of the election.

3. Google vs. Facebook

There is no difference here as employees of both companies seemed to be trying to shape the election by burying 'wrong-think' and highlighting 'right-think.'

I would still think it would be harder for Google the search engine to mess with their results than for Facebook the social media platform.

Google would be hurting their core business; Facebook would not as things like shadow-bans and the like go mostly unnoticed.

This just seems like more sour grapes and conspiracy theories from those for whom the election didn't go their way.

Re:Let me put this simply

[AK Marc]

The Facebook 'news stories' were pre-election and seemed to be designed to deify Hillary and vilify Trump in an attempt to effect the outcome of the election.

I saw plenty of fake news vilifying both sides. Seems you are lying, ignorant, or suffer from confirmation bias. And no, I'm not stating the numbers of fake stories was equal, but that they were there for both. They seemed to be more shared vilifying Trump, but sharing fake stories is separate from creating them and posting them.

This just seems like more sour grapes and conspiracy theories from those for whom the election didn't go their way.

That's rich, when Trump started complaining of the conspiracy before the election even started. As soon as he won, it was operating as expected.

Holy Zeuses

[Tablizer]

also believes that Trump has been singled out by God to be president of the United States

Trump's response: "No, I did not select myself."

Google said it was 8%, Facebook more like 10%

[Anonymous Coward]

Hard to know which source is more reputable, but my gut tells me it was between 12 and 13% - and that's what matters more than anything else.

Do you want a search engine or not?

[SuperKendall]

Google is just surfacing information that apparently a lot of people have referenced. To me the search results seem incredibly valid AS SEARCH RESULTS, even if the information contained on the page is not...

Google should not be any kind of gatekeeper to accuracy of what it links to, it should just try and produce the most relevant results - if a lot of people are refereeing and talking about that post, it then should be one of the top search results.

Crap.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is garbage.

Hillary Won! Whaaaaaa!

[frovingslosh]

TRUMP WON BOTH POPULAR ( 62.9 M -62.2 M ) AND ELECTORAL COLLEGE VOTES

That's bullshit. They are getting that be subtracting out the 3,000,000 million illegal non-citizen "immigrant" votes for Hillary. OK, they are not subtracting out all of the vote flipping from the Soros controlled voting machines because they don't know how extensive it was and they are having trouble subtracting out all the dead vote and the ballot stuffing and other proud Democrat traditional voting techniques, but they are still subtracting out the illegal votes to get these numbers. As long as you include the illegal vote and don't subtract out any of the other illegitimate votes, the Hillary beat Trump in the way that completely doesn't matter.

Re:Hillary Won! Whaaaaaa!

[serviscope_minor]

Aw Christ, Poe's Law strikes again.

It's got to be true....

[bobbied]

I saw it on the INTERNET! It is absolutely true!

Gullible people from all sides swallow their own brand of KoolAid every day off the internet. What has the world come to?

Ah, well, that pesky 1st amendment be damned, there should be a law!!

Sarc Off

I'll give you all sorts of "real" numbers

[RightwingNutjob]

You won't see any imaginary vote tallies on my authoritative site. If you see that Hillary got 60e6+5e5j votes...you know it's a fake. Real election results will be certified by the states and reported on their elections departments' websites and in established newspapers of record. That's where you get numbers that matter. Not from the first thing that pops out of Google.

If we wrote code the way some people get their news, it'd all be a sea of javascript snippets and interdependencies that would break at the drop of a hat. Oh wait.

Re:Well...

[Anonymous Coward]

Especially since it was the DNC who arranged all that publicity for Trump in the first place.

Nuke, meet foot.

Google surfaces everything... thats the point

[Roger Wilcox]

First of all, Google Search is a search engine. Search engines were not designed to evaluate the veracity of content. They simply find other websites with content relevant to your search terms.

This is the Internet and it has always been incumbent upon Internet users to exercise discretion with regard to the quality of content that can be discovered. How is this confusing?

Secondly, removing USA Supreme as the number one search result would only replace one bias with another. CNN can publish slanted material just as easily, and given their viewership is so much larger... you might almost think they have the better incentive to do so.

Limiting search results to approved news sources sounds like totalitarian philosophy to me.

polling experts???

[DidgetMaster]

'...with some polling experts projecting Clinton will ultimately rack up a 2 million-vote lead.' Are these the same polling experts that predicted that Clinton would comfortably win the election? No matter what the final tally will be, the popular vote winner will probably win by less than 1%. Not exactly a 'sizable lead' in my book. The EC vote tally however, gave a sizable lead to the election victor.

Re:polling experts???

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a submission from BeauHD, who is essentially the "mdsolar" of political articles. Everything he posts are things like "OMG! Trump will kill the space program forever!"

Re:polling experts???

[Anonymous Coward]

Are these the same polling experts that predicted that Clinton would comfortably win the election?

I feel like the story of the pollsters being wrong is somewhat distorted.
Just before the election Five Thirty Eight was predicting about a 70% chance Clinton would win, but noted

The track record of polling in American presidential elections is pretty good but a long way from perfect, and errors in the range of 3 percentage points have been somewhat common in the historical record. . . .
In three of the last five presidential elections, in other words, there was a polling error the size of which would approximately wipe out Clinton’s popular vote lead — or alternatively, if the error were in her favor, turn a solid victory into a near-landslide margin of 6 to 8 percentage points.

Re:polling experts???

[AmiMoJo]

They should be able to improve their predictions in future. In fact they should have been able to this last time around, because Trump's unexpected victory was due to the same thing as the unexpected Brexit vote.

People were too embarrassed to admit they were voting for Trump/Brexit, so lied to pollsters. To correct, simply add an embarrassment factor multiplier based on how socially unacceptable the things each side is saying.

Re:polling experts???

[Anonymous Coward]

It's an obvious analysis but I don't think it's technically correct.

For the trump vote, the "unexpected" turnout was mostly within the expected errors from the polls. The main issues were:

1. most sources underestimated the correlated errors across multiple polls, so in effect under-estimated the probability of edge-case turnouts.
2. many voters were undecided until shortly before the polls.

Most mainstream news wasn't particularly rigorous and just assumed a Clinton victory because polling numbers seemed bigger (and that Trump seems like such a clown). Which is the main reason it's thought of such an upset, when actually the polling numbers weren't ever that far off.

Seriously people

[The-Ixian]

Can we please move on already?

Why do we need to keep rehashing this? Trump won. I voted for Hillary and she didn't win. BFD, it happens. Move on....

Let's give the guy a chance instead of getting all worked up over it. Maybe he will be the best POTUS ever (doubt it, but you just never know).

At the very least, we have no more excuses for not getting stuff done. It is all under republican control now so there should be no more gridlock, we can actually see a government in action for once. Bring it republicans, show us what you got. Fix all the problems! No more excuses!

Re:Seriously people

[SpankiMonki]

Maybe he will be the best POTUS ever

He'll have to work very hard to be worse than the last two.

Re:Seriously people

[LynnwoodRooster]

Be careful. the last time we had Uniparty Government we got Obamacare, the start of the Libyan troubles, and $1 trillion of stimulus funds spent on nothing...

Re:Seriously people

[Anonymous Coward]

And the only reason that stuff wads your panties is because you're a conservative. "Fuck everyone else as long as I get mine."

Re:Seriously people

[LynnwoodRooster]

As opposed to the liberal mantra of "fuck you I want yours AND mine"...

Re:Seriously people

[Anonymous Coward]

Before even taking office, he's already way worse than the last two. The man has broken democracy.

Remember, the primary function of democracy is to convince the losers to accept the result. How's that looking about now?

Re:Seriously people

[Anonymous Coward]

The last republican president gave us, lets see.. $2 trillion dollar the Iraq war and the biggest Depression since.... the depression.... forcing the following president, Obama, to have to spend trillions to get out of the depression. We now have unemployment at below 7%, the stock market back to where it was before the depression, and a world that is envious of our economy (yeah, everyone else is sucking the big one; EU, China, Brazil, England, Japan, Germany, etc.)

Ignorance is bliss!

Link to Iraq war costs: $2 trillion, thanks george bush jr! you are the best!
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-iraq-war-anniversary-idUSBRE92D0PG20130314

Also: I am still waiting on the $17k I paid in higher gas prices from you jerks. Where is my check?
Also 2: Where is the $100k from the bonus pay I didn't get because you tanked the economy?

Re:Seriously people

[thegarbz]

Accepting an outcome in a system that every few years is deemed broken results in a system that is never fixed.

Trump i will be president, that doesn't mean we shouldn't have the discussion as to whether the system should be changed to improve for next time.

Re:Seriously people

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmm...

It may be a big deal to underrepresented folks. It may be a big deal to women who live in an evangelically run state if Planned Parenthood vs. Casey is overturned. It may be a big deal to illegal immigrants that have worked their tail off in the US for decades without any encounters with law enforcement. It may be a big deal to the climate change scientists whose work is dismissed as a "Chinese hoax". It may be a big deal for anyone caught in the crosshairs of Trump's wrath as we have seen him denigrate people publicly during his campaign and years before he was a candidate. It may be a big deal to our allies when Trump openly questions the value of NATO. It may be a big deal to those of us who see Trump as a brilliant brand manager and less so of a savvy businessman (four bankruptcies) who plans to overhaul the economy in his own style.

Re:Seriously people

[Anonymous Coward]

You are both prime examples of the problem: The only thing you know is useless bickering. On and on and on and on you go, producing absolutely nothing of value.

Bravo.

You should both fuck off.

Re:Seriously people

[serviscope_minor]

As opposed to the liberal mantra of "fuck you I want yours AND mine"...

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Re:Seriously people

[Ash-Fox]

Let it go, let it go~
Can't hold it back anymore!
Let it go, let it go~
Turn away and slam the door!
I don't care, what they're going to say!
Let the storm rage on!
The big deal never bothered me anyway.

Re:Seriously people

[Cro Magnon]

He'll have to work very hard to be worse than the last two.

I think Trump is more talented than people give him credit for. I have confidence he'll meet the goal.

Re:Seriously people

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, I wish I lived in your world.

You have noticed the wall is now becoming a fence? Insiders are his cabinet?

More to the point: The *whole world* is freaking out. This is not just another election, something fundamental has changed in global politics and signs point to major instability in the US and elsewhere. The goddamned bond market collapsed. You get how gnarly that is in terms of the stability of the US economy, yeah?

Re:Seriously people

[I_have_a_life]

You're welcome to move on if it makes you happy. Others will want to keep discussing this issue because it's important to them. It's still a free country. Let's hope it stays that way.

Re:Seriously people

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit on the stimulus spending. The general consensus among economists is that it kept the economy from going south so the fact it feels like nothing happened is essentially what it was supposed to do.

Re:Seriously people

[NeoTubNinja]

He'll have to work very hard to be worse than the last two.

The worst? I know it's "in" right now to think of Obama as the devil and a lot of people dislike Bush, but let's step OUTSIDE of our echo chambers and reassess if they are actually the worst. I'm going to go ahead and say James Buchanan and Warren G. Harding are the worst. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... Also, as much as I'm willing to give ol' Donald the benefit of the doubt, hard work is definitely not in his skill set.

Re:Seriously people

[SpankiMonki]

The worst?

I didn't say "worst". You did. Forget about echo chambers, you're hearing things that aren't there.

Many people WANT to believe fake news

[shanen]

I read your [DRJlaw's] comment several times trying to figure out why it was rated as insightful. I'd be glad if you can clarify your insight, but I can't decide if it was obscured by your confrontational inline style or it's just another bad mod on today's Slashdot. (Yes, it could be fixed, but I've already wasted too many keystrokes pointing out obvious approaches.)

I do want to seek some insight, but first I want to clarify some possible problems with your Reply. Most importantly, my own ballot only had two races on it. As part of their ongoing campaign of voter disenfranchisement, the dictators of Texas only allowed me to participate in two races this year, and in both cases the outcomes were predetermined. The state was going for ANY so-called Republican presidential nominee over ANY Democratic candidate, and my district for the House of so-called Representatives is totally gerrymandered with carefully selected voters. In Congress McCaul is a worthless tool and idiot as regards technology, but he still has major influence on technology policies. [I just tried to confirm his reelection, but no one has bothered to update his Wikipedia page, though I was surprised to find out how wealthy he is.]

Some years ago, it was actually reported that the election boards in Texas did NOT count the absentee ballots unless there were enough of them to potentially change the outcome of some race. Of course, in those days there were far fewer absentee ballots, and I was also allowed to participate in more races, so maybe I got counted anyway. I don't know about this year's election. I think they had to at least open my ballot because the ID number wasn't visible on the carrier envelope, but I think it is quite possible that two-race ballots like mine were then set aside and never actually counted in the individual races. The vicious narrow-minded politicians in Texas would write the law that way if they thought it makes their gerrymandered "mandates" look better. Look up Louie Gohmert if you have doubts. Yes, I could write the election board, but I wouldn't believe anything they said after the battle I went through just to get my worthless ballot.

Now about the fake news. Doesn't matter if it's fake if it's what they want to believe.

Yes, the Internet has given us theoretical access to the truth, but that is NOT what most people want. Most people prefer to stuff their eyeholes and earholes with pleasant stuff, not ugly and disagreeable things, even if those things are true. The REAL crime of today's super-EVIL google is personalized search that helps people brainwash themselves automatically and without effort. By their clicks, the google learns what annoys and makes the annoyances, such as the truth, go away. The better to stuff their eyeholes and earholes with the ads, remember?

There are solutions, but at this point I'm dismissing them as theoretical. The funniest theory of all would be that Slashdot could help make the world better and better informed.

Re:Many people WANT to believe fake news

[Anonymous Coward]

Most importantly, my own ballot only had two races on it.

I don't fully understand. Do you mean only two national-level races? I mean, the ballot in Forth Worth had something like 18 races on it. Where do you live that you got to vote for president and house and nothing else?

If there were local races, I think that was the GPP's point. Your vote for Board of Education or State Representative or State Supreme Court, even absentee, needs to be counted in the final tally, and carries a lot more weight than your vote for president. And they'll be counting your national-level races at the same time. They don't just not count some of your choices because they figure it's a foregone conclusion.

Re:Many people WANT to believe fake news

[DRJlaw]

Most importantly, my own ballot only had two races on it.

Provably wrong. Name your county, and we can even look it up for you.

Some years ago, it was actually reported that the election boards in Texas did NOT count the absentee ballots unless there were enough of them to potentially change the outcome of some race. Of course, in those days there were far fewer absentee ballots...

Well then, that reporting was wrong as well.

Sec. 87.1231. EARLY VOTING VOTES REPORTED BY PRECINCT. Not
later than the time of the local canvass, the early voting clerk
shall deliver to the local canvassing authority a report of the
total number of early voting votes for each candidate or measure by
election precinct. The report may reflect the total for votes by
mail and the total for votes by personal appearance.

Section 81 states that "A reference in a law outside this code to 'absentee voting' means 'early voting'," in the event that you have any additional doubts.

Re:Many people WANT to believe fake news

[shanen]

I do not appreciate being called a liar. I saw the ballot. I filled in the ballot and mailed it.

Or do you somehow think the third option on my ballot, the option of voting the straight party ticket, should be counted as a third race?

I suppose we could have discussed the matter further. If you had asked politely I would have even explained the details that apparently aren't obvious to you. Instead, you started out by calling my veracity into question.

Ergo, I've decided to mark this so-called discussion as pointless and closed.

Just another example of why Slashdot is dying (or walking dead).

Re:Many people WANT to believe fake news

[DRJlaw]

I do not appreciate being called a liar. I saw the ballot. I filled in the ballot and mailed it.

I did not call you a liar. I said that you were wrong. Name your county in Texas as we can see exactly which state and local races your ballot included. Or don't -- anyone selecting multiple counties on that site can identify the state-wide races that were on your ballot for themselves.

Re:Many people WANT to believe fake news

[Anonymous Coward]

I notice that you did not tell us what county you are voting in. That could have put the entire matter to rest. Instead you went for bluster and posturing. I'm not saying you are a liar, but you have yet to do anything to dispel my doubts. Just sayin'.

Re:Many people WANT to believe fake news

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL the ballot in Ft. Worth had a lot of races that only had one person running.

Next election I think I am going to toss my name in the hat for one of them. JP, Judges, Texas Supreme Court positions, Hell if I remember correctly the Tarrent County Sheriff was running unposed.

BTW; for those interested you can get on the ballot for local positions by contacting any of the third parties and telling them you want to run. From experience the LP will send you the paperwork and help you fill it out.

Re:Many people WANT to believe fake news

[DRJlaw]

No, I've figured it out from his bio, a quick review of Texas expat voting laws, and his posting history.

First, he's an expat living in Japan, but too obtuse to mention it. Apparently, he's also too dense to consider that the fact that he can't vote in state or local elections doesn't extend to vast majority of us.

Second, he's registered in Texas as an expat that is "indefinitely away (older form) / do not intend to return (newer form)," but deeply resents the State of Texas for denying him the right to vote in a state system that he's neither subject to nor has any plans to return to. Of course, if he'd declared an intent to return he could have voted in state and local races, so I'm not feeling much sympathy.

Third, his comment history screams world class asshole with an inflated opinion of his own intellect. Not just once in awhile, but all day every day.

I'll take his all too frequent declarations of things being "pointless and closed" as a blessing and move on.

Re:Many people WANT to believe fake news

[fustakrakich]

Poke him with a stick, and he gets aroused. He's definitely creepy. He may have left for a 'reason', if you get my drift.

Re:Many people WANT to believe fake news

[Anonymous Coward]

You come off as a needlessly confrontational douchebag in this thread. If you had a point, it is lost in your presentation.

Re:Many people WANT to believe fake news

[shanen]

Is that supposed to be one of those fake apologies? Or just evidence of narrow-minded American thinking of the sort that elected Trump?

I am not wrong, and you are a liar to say you are not making that accusation. I simply chose the stronger word because of your rudeness.

There is a VERY thin basis for continuing this discussion. First, you need to acknowledge that you don't know something. Then you need to ask POLITELY for the missing data.

An apology would be nice, too, but I don't think you're big enough for that.

Re:Many people WANT to believe fake news

[DRJlaw]

What part of "pointless and closed" are you unable to understand?

Re:Many people WANT to believe fake news

[fustakrakich]

:-) You know, common courtesy says the first shot should be off the bow, not a direct hit... Be sure to follow through to the end. It'll be swift..

Electoral vs. popular

[Anonymous Coward]

People need to look at past elections. The electoral and popular don't always match up with who wins. Why are people thinking this is something new?

A deity?

[Anonymous Coward]

> a conspiracy theory popular with 4chan users who believe that Pepe the Frog is a reincarnation of an ancient Egyptian deity

People on 4chan aren't that stupid, are they?

Re:A deity?

[Anonymous Coward]

Everyone knows Moloch is the one true god.

Re:A deity?

[budgenator]

People on 4chan aren't that stupid, are they?

People on 4chan are more like a bunch of ADHD teenagers who's med status is speculative and have a generous dose of Oppositional/Defiant syndrome added in for good measure.

This can be fixed

[Gravis Zero]

Believe it or not, fake news can be filtered out... if the majority of reports are correct or if the report is from a trustworthy source. You have to make associations with initial results and compare all the overlapping associations overlap. The more times a site is correct, the more weight you give to it's reporting and vice-versa. Basically, you have to make IBM's Watson.

Re:This can be fixed

[budgenator]

I've been involved in several news-worthy events, trust me, it's all fake, just some is more blatant than others.

Not true

[Anonymous Coward]

Snopes has confirmed there is no fake news.

Re:Not true

[LynnwoodRooster]

But did Netcraft confirm it?

"Surfaces"? What?

[wonkey_monkey]

Google Surfaces Fake News About Election Results

Google does what?

Since when has "surface" meant... well, whatever this means?

Re:"Surfaces"? What?

[Black Parrot]

Google Surfaces Fake News About Election Results

Google does what?

Maybe they were using Google as a verb.

Re:"Surfaces"? What?

[wonkey_monkey]

Google (v./n.?) Surfaces (v./n.?) Fake (v./n./adj.?) News (n.) About (prep./adj.?) Election (n.) Results (n./v.?)

Yeah, that doesn't help.

You Can't Be Serious

[KalvinB]

"Michael also believes that Trump has been singled out by God to be president of the United States, a conspiracy theory popular with 4chan users who believe that Pepe the Frog is a reincarnation of an ancient Egyptian deity."

This is your story? Do people also seriously believe in the flying spaghetti monster?

Liberals are really digging deep for their Gulf of Tonkin to establish their Ministry of Information to "protect" us from contrary information.

First they came for Pepe the Frog...

Re:You Can't Be Serious

[Anonymous Coward]

Check 'em

Re:You Can't Be Serious

[Anonymous Coward]

The Pepe bit is hilarious since it's a complete joke meme.

It's still annoying when people posted that popular vote number and I couldn't find anywhere to confirm it.

Sizable lead?

[Chris Mattern]

While saying Trump won the popular vote appears to be fale, you can hardly call a 668,000 vote lead "sizable" when the total turn out was somewhere around 130 million. She barely edged him out.

Re: Sizable lead?

[Anonymous Coward]

While saying Trump won the popular vote appears to be fale, you can hardly call a 668,000 vote lead "sizable" when the total turn out was somewhere around 130 million. She barely edged him out.

/

That's the population of Wyoming. Vermont. Getting close to the Dakota's and Alaska. It is more than the margin of victory in many states. I am entirely comfortable calling that sizable.

Trump will have to face that. In fact, I suggest every Democrat make a point to remind him of his failure to get more votes than Hillary from the voters. After all by Trump's own tweets, the electoral college is rigged. Broken. Corrupt. Let us never let him forget it.

Re: Sizable lead?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wyoming, Vermont, the Dakota's, and Alaska could have all gone to Clinton and Trump still would have won. In other words, NOT sizable by any stretch.

Re:Sizable lead?

[Anonymous Coward]

Meanwhile, 80% of people didn't vote for Trump. 80% of people didn't vote for HRC. If going by eligible voters, it's ~72% each. So, yeah, it's not a "sizable" lead by HRC. But it is a "sizable" amount of people who clearly didn't vote for the President-elect.

SEO

[hattable]

This is exactly why SEO is a scammy business. Sure nothing 'wrong' was done here, but it is obvious this is not what google intended when they wrote the search/ranking algorithm.

I was following Google

[TylerJWhit]

I'm sorry, but I don't know when or how they got these results. I was following the election results the day of the election and several days after. Every time it showed accurate results. This was probably a potential momentary blip, but far from what I'd seen.

Dead and Undocumented Voters

[Anonymous Coward]

If you subtract all of the deceased and undocumented (illegal) democrat votes, she did not actually win anything by any number that could be called 'marginal'.

Space

[dohzer]

What is it with people putting spaces after opening brackets, but not the closing bracket? It looks amateur.

And here I thought the politically charged whining

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck me, right?

"Sizable?"

[Anonymous Coward]

Even a 2 million vote difference in the popular vote is hardly "sizable". It's nothing and within the margin of error.

Slashdot Guilty of Fake news too.

[Hylandr]

Slashdot is guilty of fake news too.

Clinton has already been shown to be leading the popular vote by a sizable margin.

Fake news detected. The margin is less than .1%, and quite less than the margin for error.

Re:Slashdot Guilty of Fake news too.

[serviscope_minor]

The margin is less than .1%, and quite less than the margin for error.

Brazenly making shit up detected!

Re:Slashdot Guilty of Fake news too.

[Hylandr]

Last I checked when it mattered she had just conceded the race.

You know, forfeit, quit, gave it up to our new president. Etc.

You don't get take-backs on conceding the highest office on the planet. she *quit* it's *done*. These 'Not my president' are rooting for someone that doesn't want the office.

lets get this into everyone's head: " She quit the race." That's what conceding means. He's your President.

...depends...

[SharpFang]

Current estimates say roughly 3mln non-citizens voted Clinton. That would mean invalid/illegal votes, and versus 660,000 votes of lead, would mean she did NOT win the popular vote.

I can't believe they bought it.

[sabbede]

4chan: Successfully trolling the news with nonsense.

It's a good joke, I'm just blown away by the fact that someone believed it.

YOU LOST fascist. get over it

[Anonymous Coward]

All your argument states is that Republicans had the dignity not to protest at Obamas win. If Obama is slyly kept in the white house it wull just prove the fascist u are. Accept defeat like a bitch which u probably are. Pay-to-play slush fund Hillary lost and no her illegal activity was NOT fake news. shes an indictable criminal.

Wait...

[Anonymous Coward]

So now we are taking "An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Verge" as a news source?
Talk about your fake news...

Breaking!

[stolidobserver]

In a separate bid, Slashdot, not to be outdone by Google or Facebook on the fake news front, quotes "An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Verge" as the source of a heart rending and chilling tale that grips us all.

Public masturbation of 1673220

[shanen]

ZZ

Too cowardly to respond to him?

[fustakrakich]

Well, at least somebody got ya good, you pee wee!

Er what?

[hucker75]

Why would my vote be influenced by a google search? I'm not that shallow.

Public masturbation of 1673220

[shanen]

Z^3

More public puerile bed wetting of shanen

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep, you are the coward... What a fucking twerp!