Google Will Display Election Results As Soon As Polls Close (techcrunch.com) 174
An anonymous reader quotes a report from TechCrunch: Google has been highly involved with connecting U.S. voters to timely information throughout this election cycle, by offering everything from voter registration assistance to polling place information in its search result pages. Today, the company announced plans to display the results of the U.S. election directly in search, in over 30 languages, as soon as the polls close. Web searchers who query for "election results" will be able to view detailed information on the Presidential, Senatorial, Congressional, Gubernatorial races as well as state-level referenda and ballot propositions, says Google. The results will be updated continuously -- every 30 seconds, as indicated by a screenshot shared by the company on its official blog post detailing the new features. Tabs across the top will let you switch to between the various races, like President, House, and Senate, for example. The results will also include information like how many more electoral votes a presidential candidate needs to win, how many seats are up for grabs in the House and Senate, and how many Gubernatorial races are underway, among other things. This data is presented in an easy-to-read format, with Democrats in blue, Republicans in red, and simple graphs, alongside the key numbers.
Honestly (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
What is it they are doing? (Not living in the US I don't seem to have been targeted by "Google election meddling")
Re:Honestly (Score:4, Interesting)
From Censorship by Google
"During the 2016 Presidential Election, Google was accused by SourceFed for manipulating its results in favor of Hillary Clinton. They alleged that the recommended searches for the candidate are different than the recommended searchers to both Yahoo and Bing and yet the searches for both Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders are identical to both Yahoo and Bing. Furthermore, SourceFed placed the recommended searches for Clinton on Google Trends and observed that these terms were searched less than the recommended searchers for both Yahoo and Bing.[42][43] Later, on July 27, Google again faced controversy when Trump and Gary Johnson were left out of the Google search for "Presidential Candidates."[44] Google has responded with a statement that these omissions were as a result of a "technical bug" and has subsequently brought back the candidates.[45]"
[42] Hern, Alex (June 10, 2016). "Google Manipulating Search In Favor Of Hillary Clinton?". Techaeris. Retrieved June 10, 2016.
[43] http://www.washingtontimes.com, The Washington Times (June 9, 2016). "Google accused of burying negative Hillary Clinton stories". The Washingtion Times. Retrieved June 10, 2016.
[44] Fingas, Jon (July 27, 2016). "Google searches omitted key US presidential candidates". Engadget. Retrieved July 27, 2016.
[45] Brandom, Russell (July 27, 2016). "Google tweaks system after Trump left off search results for 'presidential candidates'". The Verge. Retrieved July 28, 2016.
Re: (Score:2)
Any sufficient level of incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.
"Accidental" my ass.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What is it they are doing?
They are reporting the truth. Most ideologues consider that "meddling".
Re: (Score:2)
If they are reporting results when the polls close then that's not the truth. They're engaging in statistical prediction which is not the same thing as presenting the truth.
Re:Honestly (Score:4, Funny)
How do you feel about Russia meddling with the elections?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How do you feel about Russia meddling with the elections?
You mean when the Russians gave the American people accurate information that America's own leaders were trying to hide? Is that the "meddling" you are referring to?
Re:Honestly (Score:5, Insightful)
You mean when the Russians gave the American people accurate information that America's own leaders were trying to hide? Is that the "meddling" you are referring to?
Digging up all the dirt you can find on a candidate and then dumping it to the public (at the time you think it will do the most damage to their reputation) is not a new practice; when a political campaign does it, it is called "opposition research".
So now we have Russia doing opposition research on behalf of the Republican Party. I'd call that meddling, wouldn't you?
You don't really believe that Putin has the best interests of the American voters in mind, do you?
Re: (Score:2)
You don't really believe that Putin has the best interests of the American voters in mind, do you?
Frankly, I don't think that either of the major party candidates (or most of the party leadership) have the best interests of the American voters in mind. From my perspective, any additional accurate information is helpful, even if it comes from distasteful sources.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't really believe that Putin has the best interests of the American voters in mind, do you?
I challenge you to show me any politician or political leader that doesn't have a bias towards some special interest or another. In that context, your question is irrelevant. Your question should be re-phrased as: Who has the best interests of the American voters most in mind? Everyone of a reasonable amount of intelligence is meta gaming. Show me someone in this space that isn't. You know why you can't? Because those that don't play the game well get kicked from the game. You can have all the disdai
Re: (Score:2)
How do you feel about Russia meddling with the elections?
You mean when the Russians gave the American people accurate information that America's own leaders were trying to hide? Is that the "meddling" you are referring to?
Does it really make any difference? The term "honest politician" is an oxymoron is it not? For the idealists, isn't the politician you're searching for as rare as a unicorn? Finding discrepancies in what politicians say is like shooting fish in a barrel.
Re: (Score:2)
How do you feel about Russia meddling with the elections?
You mean when the Russians gave the American people accurate information that America's own leaders were trying to hide? Is that the "meddling" you are referring to?
True, but how do we know that Russia will be fair and balanced?
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Although the practice has been stopped after the 2000 election, it used to be common place for network television to call results of elections before the polls even closed. This was done based entirely on exit polls and previous polling data. After the debacle in the 2000 election where Florida was called for Bush (before the polls closed), then back to undecided (I think after the polls closed), then to Bush again, then (if I remember correctly) Gore, the Easter Bunny, Elmer Fudd, and finally, "we have n
Re:We're all tracking the reality of things,right? (Score:2)
In more contested districts, it is more common to have longer lines at the polls, which can mean that people technically vote after the poll close times, if they arrived before that time. People waiting in line and giving up based on speculated information, like what Google will be providing, is exactly what happened before.
If this is true - and they'll call the result when there's still enough people in line to change the result - then shame on Google. They've gone from organizing the world's information to predicting (and influencing) the future.
Re: (Score:2)
If this is true - and they'll call the result when there's still enough people in line to change the result - then shame on ABC/CBS/NBC. They've gone from organizing the world's information to predicting (and influencing) the future.
FTFY - For the old timers who remember the Three Networks in the pre-24/7 news cycle, pre-Internet era.
Re: (Score:2)
FTFY - For the old timers who remember the Three Networks in the pre-24/7 news cycle, pre-Internet era.
back in 1980 on television when Carter conceded election to Reagan before the polls closed in California.
Re: (Score:1)
If this is true - and they'll call the result when there's still enough people in line to change the result - then shame on Google. They've gone from organizing the world's information to predicting (and influencing) the future.
Great. Now people aren't even reading the fucking title:
Google Will Display Election Results As Soon As Polls Close
Re: (Score:2)
If this is true - and they'll call the result when there's still enough people in line to change the result - then shame on Google. They've gone from organizing the world's information to predicting (and influencing) the future.
Great. Now people aren't even reading the fucking title:
Google Will Display Election Results As Soon As Polls Close
Great. Now people aren't even reading the fucking parent comment
In more contested districts, it is more common to have longer lines at the polls, which can mean that people technically vote after the poll close time
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> After the debacle in the 2000 election where Florida was called for Bush (before the polls closed)
You remember incorrectly.
Florida was called prematurely for Gore while the polls were still open in the panhandle.
This probably cost Bush a staggering number of votes in the panhandle by the effect of the losing party not going to the polls, while the winning party jumps in and still triumphantly votes (which in turn would have prevented the debacle). The panhandle is as rich in Republican votes as Palm B
Re: (Score:2)
It does lead to a question... are they going to project/call individual states for Kodos or Kang before we get to that 99% mark, like most cable TV networks do?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, they will, but that's not really a bad thing. You can give accurate results well before the 99% mark in almost every election. Certain districts have a very repeatable voting pattern (meaning a district will vote nearly all republican or democrat in every election), and you can get voter turn out numbers well before results are counted. In addition, polling data, exit polls, and statistics can give you a prediction, and if the first 15% of the results are following the pattern, you can say with a re
Re:We are all tracking the reality of things, righ (Score:4, Interesting)
Google is going to have to wait the same as everyone else.
Only if the election is really close. That is unlikely.
Here is a quick cheat sheet:
If Donald wins in Pennsylvania, Hillary is in trouble.
If Hillary wins Florida, she will likely win the election.
If Hillary carries North Carolina, she almost certainly will win the election.
If Hillary wins in Ohio, she will likely win by an Electoral College landslide.
No other states matter.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually Trump needs to pretty much win every swing state to win. He needs Florida and Ohio and North Carolina and Arizona. There's only 1 or 2 small ones he can fail to win... or he has to win in a state that hasn't voted republican for president in decades. Demographics just don't favor the republican party and are getting worse. Its actually harder now as Virginia is fairly solidly blue (where 12 years ago it was red) and North Carolina is red leaning purple (where it was red). The growth of urban ce
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nonsense. Trump was well-ahead in AZ for most of the race (even with his racist comments and supporters), and ONLY fell behind after the open-mic scandal broke, and John McCain repealed his endorsement. The race-baiting may have helped things, but it was the sexual assault that made a huge enough difference to change the color.
Re: (Score:2)
Just don't think it can't happen. Don't make the mistake a lot of British people did with Brexit, making a protest vote or not bothering at all on the assumption it wouldn't matter. It did matter.
Re: (Score:2)
Muslims account for 4.4% of the population in the UK.
Shut the fuck up with your bullshit conspiracy theories, dumbass.
Re: (Score:2)
Less than 3 million, out of a population of 65+ million.
Do you have any proof that they all vote labour?
No? Thought so.
Re: (Score:2)
Most everything you've said is wrong:
Polls say Hillary can win even without PA.
Hillary doesn't need Florida to win, either.
Hillary doesn't even need North Carolina to win, though one of those 3 is necessary. PA is heavily in her favor, and she's ahead in the other two as well.
Trump needs to win all THREE above listed swing states (which are polling against him) to even stay alive, and that's assuming he wins every other close state, too.
See:
http://projects.fivethirtyeigh... [fivethirtyeight.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Unless you have something called a model. They're wrong, but some are super useful. It's cool.
Re: (Score:2)
Polls say Hillary can win even without PA.
If Hillary loses Pennsylvania, then the polls are WRONG. Brexit level wrong. So many other states will likely break the "wrong" way too. She will be in trouble.
Hillary doesn't need Florida to win, either.
She doesn't need it, but Trump does. So if she takes it, she will likely win.
Hillary doesn't even need North Carolina to win
If she takes NC, then her vote is even better than her support in polls, and she will likely cruise to a strong victory.
Re: (Score:2)
No, the polling in PA can prove to be wrong without any other state being affected by whatever issue there is in PA.
She will likely win without it, so you're stating absolutely nothing, here. Sky is blue, water is wet, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
No, the polling in PA can prove to be wrong without any other state being affected by whatever issue there is in PA.
Possible, but extremely unlikely. The big question is black turnout in Philadelphia. It that is lower than expected, the same factors will likely depress black turnout in places like Miami, Richmond, Raleigh, etc.
Right now, it is 68F and sunny in Philadelphia. That should help Hillary. In fact, the weather is nice across most of the East Coast and Midwest, and Democrats do better when turnout is higher. She should have a good day.
Re: (Score:2)
It would seem the weather wasn't good enough...
Re: (Score:2)
By "Brexit level wrong." I take it you mean correct?
No, the Brexit polls were wrong by a big margin. They predicted Brexit losing by over 5%. It won.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Except for Nebraska and Maine.
That's not a real concern. "Since the Civil War, all states have chosen presidential electors by popular vote. This process has been normalized to the point that the names of the electors appear on the ballot in only eight states". "Faithless electors have not changed the outcome of ANY preside
They need to be really, really careful... (Score:3)
There are some states, (i.e. Florida panhandle) that span two time zones. In at least one recent election (Bush/Gore?) the TV pundits called the race before all the poles in the state (both time zones) had closed. It was claimed that this illegally discouraged voters. They risk running afoul of U.S. election laws if something like this happens.
Re: (Score:2)
TV pundits called the race before all the poles in the state (both time zones) had closed.
What have Polish people got to do with it?
Re: (Score:2)
What have Polish people got to do with it?
I'm sure you've heard the old joke about the science fiction writers who conducted an examination of Polish survey methods? Called "Poul and Pohl's Pole poll poll."
Re: (Score:2)
Google uses published nothing more. I don't think they can fall afoul of those laws.
As much as I want to object, this is normal (Score:2)
Most states publish results as they are tabulated and recorded, providing these to media outlets. A long time practice.
And then the media will decide how to describe these results. That's the objectionable part.
Rumor is that exit polling data will be distributed before all polls close nationwide, which is somewhat of a departure form tradition, but predictable, since it's fairly obvious the media has tried to influence the vote, and why stop now?
Re: (Score:1)
Whatever most States do, it is enough for one (or two) of them to be sufficiently close to warrant a recount [factcheck.org] or a legal action [trust.org], and the national results may be delayed by days and weeks.
Unless, of course, the fix is so in, even any of the above eventualities will not matter. Given Google's being deeply and solidly in tank with one of the candidates [lifezette.com], this may be more probable than is healthy for the democratic p
Google has been highly involved (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
So what's the end game here? Say Clinton wins, some infographics and tweets appear proving it was rigged, Trump refuses to concede. What is going to happen, what are you going to do?
Will only help in non-West part of US (Score:2)
Washington State, Oregon, and most of California votes by mail or in early voting.
All the votes in WA are legal if postmarked Tuesday or dropped at a free drop box location by 8 pm PST. Most of those won't be counted until Saturday at the earliest (Friday is Veteran's Day).
Luckily for you, over half of WA has already voted, 40 percent of Oregon has already voted, and similar results in California, but technically, you can't call it until November 20th at the earliest.
Re: (Score:2)
Was thinking the same thing (Oregon resident here).
Then again, at least in Oregon, they only need count votes from the counties of Multnomah (Portland), Marion (Salem) and Deschutes (Bend). Not like the rest of us in Oregon have any real influence or notice (except in the travel brochures, but you know...)
Re: (Score:2)
There is zero chance that Washington state tips the election one way or the other. It's a pretty safe bet.
Re: (Score:2)
Washington state has a history. They will 'find' as many votes for Hillary as they need.
Re: (Score:2)
Interestingly, at least one WA county warned that due to high mail volume, they might not be able to postmark everything that was mailed close to the election in time. If you haven't got it in by now, make sure you put it in a ballot drop box instead.
Live (Score:2)
Missing word: Live
The election could be over by 6PM Pacific... (Score:2)
But she probably won't (Score:2)
Nate Silver is predicting that Trump will win Florida.
He also says Hillary is one state away from losing the election [foxnews.com] (ie - if even one D state flips to an R, she loses).
It's a close race - I'm looking forward to seeing the results.
Re: (Score:3)
Nate Silver is predicting that Trump will win Florida.
If Trump wins Florida, he will need to win Ohio (went to Obama in 2008 and 2013) and Pennsylvania (went Republican in 1988). If he fails to win all three states, his chances of becoming POTUS is slim to none.
He also says Hillary is one state away from losing the election (ie - if even one D state flips to an R, she loses).
Hillary starts off at 268 electoral votes and has multiple paths to win. Trump starts off with 205 electoral votes and has to run the table to win Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania.
It's a close race - I'm looking forward to seeing the results.
That may be true for some states. Hillary will probably win in a landslide overall.
Re: (Score:2)
> Hillary starts off at 268 electoral votes
Press F5 to refresh map.
Re: (Score:2)
Press F5 to refresh map.
Trump pulled a miracle by running the tables (Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania) and breaking the Democratic firewall (Wisconsin).
Re: (Score:2)
This comment will haunt you tomorrow. LOL.
Why would my comment haunt me? It's an educated guest based on history and statistics.
Re: (Score:2)
If one state in her firewall flips, AND no toss-ups go to her, sure.
Re: (Score:2)
Daddy needs a new pair of shoes (Score:4, Interesting)
The gamblers have already called the election:
https://electionbettingodds.co... [electionbettingodds.com]
Re: (Score:2)
John Stossel is a gambler?
He is a democrat reporter.
Re: (Score:2)
John Stossel is not a Democrat. He's been a far-Right libertarian-type Republican for as long as I can remember. Not only was he a reporter for Fox, but he still has a blog over at Townhall.com, one of the largest Republican websites.
Curiously (Score:4, Interesting)
Curiously, the total money bet favors Clinton, while the total number of bets favors Trump.
In a situation where everyone has exactly one vote, it's not clear which measure has predictive power.
Re: (Score:2)
Curiously, the total money bet favors Clinton, while the total number of bets favors Trump.
When the FBI director made his announcement 10 days ago, the number of bets that Trump will win went up dramatically. Like most of the Clinton scandals, the announcement failed to turn up a smoking gun.
Re: (Score:2)
We don't know whether there was a smoking gun or not, only that they dropped it.
After 30 years of investigations, no smoking gun was ever found to convict the Clintons in a court of law.
I'm sure Comey wants to live to see December.
He may be out of the job in December, but I'm sure Fox News will pick him up as a Clinton expert.
Re:Curiously (Score:5, Informative)
As something of a gambler myself, I think I can explain.
The payout on the Trump bet is greater because he's going off at long odds due to his underdog status. People who bet long-shots tend to do so with smaller amounts, whereas people making big bets are more likely to play the chalk. Hedges are always smaller than the primary wager.
Given the small number of people who bet on elections, I would caution against reading anything into the total number of wagers on either candidate. It would be like picking a winner based on the number of people at their rallies.
WE MUST (Score:3, Funny)
Max Headroom redux (Score:2)
Don't care (Score:2)
I wonder if this will make it harder (Score:2)
exit polls will be wrong this year though (Score:2)
Fail. (Score:2)
Dixville Notch results have been out for well over 30 minutes, yet Google doesn't display it.
Re:Google very helpful (Score:4, Interesting)
I like that Google is doing this, but I predict that there will be some hand-wringing from people who don't realize how this works.
Often times certain parts of a state report earlier than others, different sorts of people vote early in the day and late in the day, and this can cause states' results to fluctuate a lot during the night. It could look like Candidate A is winning all day long, only for B to overtake at the end.
I feel the same way about being able to trust the media as any thinking person does these days, but there is something helpful in the expert analysts that are hired by media outlets to make projections during the night. They know how individual precincts trend and what the early returns might portend.
I'm guessing there will be some hand-wringing online about some state where soandso was winning big until The Pentavorate hacked the servers and swung the results huge at the 11th hour.
Re: (Score:3)
Polls don't start to report until all of the polls have closed. What happens is that the media are conducting exit polling (asking people as they leave the polls who they voted for) and are reporting that before the polls close.
Re:Google very helpful (Score:5, Informative)
What happens is that the media are conducting exit polling (asking people as they leave the polls who they voted for) and are reporting that before the polls close.
Maybe a decade and a half ago, but not anymore; at least not legally. The Representation of the People Act of 2002 made it a crime to report exit poll results before a state's polls have closed.
All the polls in a state have the same closing time, but polling places stay open until all the people in line at closing time have had a chance to vote. So, some votes get cast after "official" closing time, and after some precincts begin reporting results.
(2) Each individual precinct reports results when the count in that precinct is complete. This, not exit polling, is why the election night news coverage always goes like "In Florida, with 30% of the vote counted ..."
Re: (Score:2)
I'd be happy if they just wanted one full week before releasing the preliminary results. It would at least give people who vote in the west or later in the day some confidence that their vote is actually counted before the media declares what the outcome is.
Re: (Score:2)
Who on earth moderated this as informative? There is no such thing as the "Representation of the People Act of 2002," unless you happen to be living in India.
There is an informal agreement among U.S. media outlets to hold back exit polling results until the polls close in a state -- which, incidentally, Fox News broke in 2014 [vox.com] in certain respects.
There is a constitutional amendment you
Re: (Score:2)
The Representation of the People Act of 2002 made it a crime to report exit poll results before a state's polls have closed.
So yet another infringement of free speech.
Re: (Score:2)
And that worked out so very well during Bush v Gore, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Doubting the electoral process and its integrity is a threat to democracy - per Hillary Clinton
Re:Google very helpful (Score:4, Informative)
Even worse, the differences in reporting times aren't necessarily random, but can be determined by things like actual vs. expected turnout or urban vs. rural precincts, which can correlate with party. It's entirely possible for, say, a bunch of rural Republican precincts to report early while a bunch of urban Democratic ones don't have their votes tallied until well into the night (or vice-versa).
Re: (Score:2)
East voting reports should not be presented until the polls close in Hawaii, or California. Early results from New York could influence voting results in California up to three hours before the polls close.
Integrity is more important than profits during a voting day.
Ditto for CNN, FOX, ABC, NBC, CBS, etc.....
Re: (Score:3)
Click-bait is click-bait.
Unless there's clear cut discrepancy with clear evidence, I prefer to believe that Google's interpretation of data isn't inherently 'political', or 'racist' or 'insert-other-bad-thing'. Instead, its regurgitating back signals that people are generating creating a cyclically re-enforced trend.
A general model:
- Google sees 10 pro-ABC articles, and 10 anti-ABC articles.
- Web searcher searches for ABC.
- 51% of searchers click on the anti-ABC pages, and the 49% cl
Re: (Score:2)
Yup. And let ABC or an anti-ABC super PAC chime in, and you can have it dance however you like.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
A totally unbiased news source I'm sure.
From that site's front page:
"But the outcome of Election Day 2016 was planned down to the last devil’s detail eight years ago in a long forgotten pact between two of America’s most corrupt public figures, Barack Hussein Obama, Hillary Rodham Clinton and their greedy, gruesome global masters."
Shit like this gets +3. LOL I come back to slashdot just to laugh.
Re: (Score:2)
For the last week Google has been harassing me every I look: Youtube, my phone, my tablet -- "do you know where to vote?" "look up your polling place?" etc... etc... etc...
Lucky you. I got 400+ political emails asking for my money over the weekend.
Responsible citizens don't need help voting (Score:1)
Simply put, responsible citizens do not need such help discharging their duties. We know, there is a vote, we know where it is. We've registered to vote long ago and made arrangements with baby-sitters etc. to visit the polls — or requested absentee ballots.
But such folks tend to vote Conservative (or should I say KKKon$ervative?), so, for the Illib
Re: (Score:2)
The symbolic first black president who also tainted the idea of black presidents at the same time for future generations.
FTFY - Same complaint in 2008 and 2012. Obama did a fine job despite Republican obstruction. I'm sure Hillary will too.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Why are large multi-national corporations having any say in the US political process?
When have they not? Who do you think delivered the election news in the past? At least these days there's a much wider spread of multi-nationals involved with election information, so individual entities have less influence overall.
if Google reports an incorrect count people will believe it
Perhaps, same as with Facebook and Twitter and CNN and Fox News etc etc. But since no counts are reported until all polls are closed, it won't affect the result.
exit polls (Score:2)