Google Surfaces Fake News About Election Results (theverge.com) 243
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.
And how is this not a legitimate point? (Score:2)
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: (Score:3, Informative)
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
Re:And how is this not a legitimate point? (Score:5, Interesting)
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? (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
And really, you claim "cohesive nation?" Haven't you been paying attention to current events?
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
What is "fair"? I suspect the answer depends on who you ask.
Re: (Score:2)
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 validit
Re:And how is this not a legitimate point? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
This is democracy and your vote does not count the same as mine. /Argument
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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 v
Re: (Score:2)
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 ha
Re: (Score:2)
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 n
Re: (Score:2)
Re:And how is this not a legitimate point? (Score:5, Informative)
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. [fvap.gov]
"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.
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.
Many people WANT to believe fake news (Score:2)
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 t
Re: (Score:2)
Provably wrong. [state.tx.us] Name your county, and we can even look it up for you.
Well then, that reporting was wrong as well [state.tx.us].
Re: (Score:2)
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 po
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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 fo
Re: (Score:2)
What part of "pointless and closed" are you unable to understand?
Re: (Score:2)
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 vo
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:3)
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? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
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 [vote.org]...
You, good sir, are hereby awarded the most helpful comment of the day on slashdot award.
Re: (Score:3)
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 electi
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
> 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 no
Re: (Score:2)
> 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: (Score:2)
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? (Score:5, Informative)
Your link is run by Alex Jones, [wikipedia.org] 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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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 fi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
All votes are counted, absentee or not. Previous posters provided these useful links:
http://help.vote.org/article/8... [vote.org]
https://www.fvap.gov/vao/vag/a... [fvap.gov]
What is an expert? (Score:3, Insightful)
...with some polling experts projecting...
Honestly, after this election, I'm surprised anyone takes that phrase seriously.
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Has Google ever claimed to be about the "truth"? (Score:2)
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 t
70 News is a blog (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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 accur
Press credentials anyone? (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
Do you want a search engine or not? (Score:2)
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.
Hillary Won! Whaaaaaa! (Score:2, Funny)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Aw Christ, Poe's Law strikes again.
It's got to be true.... (Score:2)
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 (Score:2)
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
Google surfaces everything... thats the point (Score:2)
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
polling experts??? (Score:3)
Seriously people (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2, Funny)
Maybe he will be the best POTUS ever
He'll have to work very hard to be worse than the last two.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
This can be fixed (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
"Surfaces"? What? (Score:2)
Google Surfaces Fake News About Election Results
Google does what?
Since when has "surface" meant... well, whatever this means?
Re: (Score:3)
Google Surfaces Fake News About Election Results
Google does what?
Maybe they were using Google as a verb.
You Can't Be Serious (Score:2)
"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...
Sizable lead? (Score:3)
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? (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
SEO (Score:2)
Space (Score:2)
What is it with people putting spaces after opening brackets, but not the closing bracket? It looks amateur.
Slashdot Guilty of Fake news too. (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
The margin is less than .1%, and quite less than the margin for error.
Brazenly making shit up detected!
...depends... (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
This fool's fake news should serve notice to all that the power of Google Search Trolling is absolute!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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 (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:"Polling experts"??? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
3 million illegals voted
http://www.infowars.com/report... [infowars.com]
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3)
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: (Score:3)
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. Statis
Re: (Score:2)
People lie on the internet, and algorithms don't know any better. Fake-news at 11.
Re: (Score:2)
My clock only goes to 10.
Damn metric time keeping.
Re: (Score:2)
Just refuse to acknowledge daylight saving time and you should be fine.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Calling a candidate a clown, a sex offender, Hitler reincarnate, etc, doesn't sound like free advertising.
Re: (Score:3)
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)