9 ms·

Google Election Results

147 points by fjordan 14y ago

endoself 14y ago
I just get a box under results saying 'access not allowed'. Anyone else?
thaumaturgy 14y ago
Politico seems to have more current information: http://www.politico.com/2012-election/map/#/President/2012/ http://www.politico.com/2012-election/map/#/President/2012/
- JaggedJax 14y ago
  According to the current total vote count I see on both, Google is more up to date by a few thousand votes.
  - thaumaturgy 14y ago
    Odd. A spot check of a few states is showing a much higher vote count in Politico's graph.
    - JaggedJax 14y ago
      Odd indeed. I suppose the actual count and timing doesn't matter so much when they call most of the states with only 1% reporting.
curiousDog 14y ago
Bing has the same: http://www.bing.com/elections/ http://www.bing.com/elections/
- esusatyo 14y ago
  Yeah Spiderman uses Bing, we should too.
dripton 14y ago
I am really annoyed to see many of these pages calling states for a candidate with 0% of votes in. Can't we at least wait until a statistically valid sample of actual votes is in?
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- Evbn 14y ago
  They do. They just round down from 0.4% in the summary. When 3600 of 4000 people vote one way, across several precints, it is statistically significant. You won't see that in a statr like Florida that has less consistency across precincts, but in NH and DC, it is a valid call.
  - natrius 14y ago
    I don't think that's what's going on. Once polls close, early vote totals are available. Those aren't counted in the percent of precincts reporting. That means there can be zero percent of precincts reporting, but 25% of the vote counted already.
chill1 14y ago
Why do they count a state as having been won by a candidate after only 5%, 10%, or even 25% of the total precincts are reported? That cannot possibly have given a candidate the 51% they need to carry the state.
- cdcox 14y ago
  Because history and polls essentially show that the other candidate winning that state is impossible. They wait until voting closes in that state before calling it as a courtesy. The majority of states could have been called weeks in advance.
- pebb 14y ago
  He who casts a vote decides nothing. He who counts the votes decides everything
- ars 14y ago
  There are only 9 states that are actually in question (the battleground states). All the others are known well in advance. They pretend they don't know till the polls close, but it's just to avoid discouraging voters. Load this: http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/results/president/scenarios http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/results/president/scenario... and mark the 9 states as they call them, and you'll know who won.
  - Evbn 14y ago
    Annoyingly, that site now redirects to results reporting. Or only on mobile?
    - bryanlarsen 14y ago
      Only on mobile. On the desktop it includes the current results but is still basically the decision tree. However, it doesn't let you choose the states that are already decided. (New Hampshire at the moment).
extesy 14y ago
I like The New York Times coverage more: http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/results/president/big-board http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/results/president/big-boar... - I think it's more visually appealing and also more functional.
- zalew 14y ago
  I'm not American, but visually I like this one http://edition.cnn.com/election/2012/results/main?hpt=elec_flippertkr http://edition.cnn.com/election/2012/results/main?hpt=elec_f...
  - jomohke 14y ago
    The Huffington Post is good too: http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/2012/results http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/2012/results
    - deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]
- Evbn 14y ago
  Weird that Bing has an huge ad on the NYT site, for a site with essentially the same content. I wonder what clickthrough they get. Maybe a lot, as everyone opens 10 different tabs to cycle through sites and get higher throughput on updates.
Fizzadar 14y ago
BBC is my favorite: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20009195 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20009195
danso 14y ago
The NYT (and other news sites...check out the Chicago Tribune's clean map http://elections.chicagotribune.com/results/us-president/ http://elections.chicagotribune.com/results/us-president/)...win hands down in looks and functionality, in such a way that you wonder why Google even tried. They don't appear to have more up-to-date info either. They might have a different source of data but that isn't at all communicated in this format. There must be other, niftier ways to present the data (results and any other kind of data) and chronological structure of our election day than just a map. That said, I hope Google continues to be a real competitor in terms of providing the voting results data.
- amalag 14y ago
  CT's map is a lot cleaner but it doesn't have the county by county maps that Google does.
  - nhebb 14y ago
    The county maps have coloring errors. When I checked Oregon, most of the rural counties voted red but are colored blue.
    - Stratoscope 14y ago
      Ouch. That would be my bug. Fixed now, with my sincere apology and thanks for reporting it. https://code.google.com/p/election-maps/source/detail?r=497599a16f84e77fb644d150d4a73df82e9153ec&repo=2012# https://code.google.com/p/election-maps/source/detail?r=4975...
- fjordan 14y ago
  This table of calls by network is a nice display of information as well: http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/results/president/network-calls http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/results/president/network-... Edit: It looks to be down at the moment.
- andyjsong 14y ago
  I like HuffPo the best: http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/2012/results/senate http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/2012/results/senate NYT is starting to stutter.
socialist_coder 14y ago
I dig the InTrade page: http://www.intrade.com/v4/misc/electoral-map/ http://www.intrade.com/v4/misc/electoral-map/
anigbrowl 14y ago
WSJ.com had great looking coverage, but their flash (I think - didn't check) seems to be broken and their map is unusable under load. PBS has the best commentary IMHO, but their website crashed early under load.
grecy 14y ago
...and so, with the way it's going... can we make a decent estimate of the victor?
DigitalSea 14y ago
Wow, surprisingly Google appear to be quite behind in terms of tallying up the votes. The Huffington Post amongst others appear to have way more up-to-date information: http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/2012/results http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/2012/results, disappointing on Google's part.
- anigbrowl 14y ago
  They're using AP's numbers. I dodn't know why they don't just scrape the state govt websites, which are where all the news orgs are getting their data anyway.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- ww520 14y ago
  Yeah, I was surprised Virgina was in red for the longest time in Google's result, while all indicators had it gone blue.
tlogan 14y ago
Regarding Google News real-time coverage, they should call it near-real-time coverage.
brown9-2 14y ago
NPR had a really nice results dashboard also: http://election2012.npr.org/ http://election2012.npr.org/
sagarun 14y ago
Yahoo! http://news.yahoo.com/control-room/ http://news.yahoo.com/control-room/
RyanMcGreal 14y ago
More first-past-the-post foolishness: Obama got 50.3% of the popular vote but 59.9% of the electoral college vote, while Romney got 48.2% of the popular vote but 40.5% of the electoral college vote.
- theycallmemorty 14y ago
  In the last Canadian federal election, we gave one party a majority government even though they only won 39.62% of the popular vote. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_federal_election,_2011 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_federal_election,_2011
  - RyanMcGreal 14y ago
    Absolutely. I'm also Canadian, and therefore sensitized to the issues surrounding FPTP. So far, Canada has somehow resisted the tendency toward a partisan duopoly, but that's a double-edged sword. On the one hand, it means you can actually choose to vote for a progressive party, a moderate party or a conservative party (or a regional party). On the other, it means we get lots of bizarre artifacts, e.g. the 2008 election, in which the NDP had 18% of the vote but only 12% of the seats, while the BQ had 10% of the votes but 17% of the seats.

147 points by fjordan 14y ago

I just get a box under results saying 'access not allowed'. Anyone else?

Politico seems to have more current information: http://www.politico.com/2012-election/map/#/President/2012/ http://www.politico.com/2012-election/map/#/President/2012/

JaggedJax 14y ago
According to the current total vote count I see on both, Google is more up to date by a few thousand votes.
- thaumaturgy 14y ago
  Odd. A spot check of a few states is showing a much higher vote count in Politico's graph.
  - JaggedJax 14y ago
    Odd indeed. I suppose the actual count and timing doesn't matter so much when they call most of the states with only 1% reporting.

curiousDog 14y ago

Bing has the same: http://www.bing.com/elections/ http://www.bing.com/elections/

esusatyo 14y ago
Yeah Spiderman uses Bing, we should too.

dripton 14y ago

I am really annoyed to see many of these pages calling states for a candidate with 0% of votes in. Can't we at least wait until a statistically valid sample of actual votes is in?

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
Evbn 14y ago
They do. They just round down from 0.4% in the summary. When 3600 of 4000 people vote one way, across several precints, it is statistically significant. You won't see that in a statr like Florida that has less consistency across precincts, but in NH and DC, it is a valid call.
- natrius 14y ago
  I don't think that's what's going on. Once polls close, early vote totals are available. Those aren't counted in the percent of precincts reporting. That means there can be zero percent of precincts reporting, but 25% of the vote counted already.

chill1 14y ago

Why do they count a state as having been won by a candidate after only 5%, 10%, or even 25% of the total precincts are reported? That cannot possibly have given a candidate the 51% they need to carry the state.

cdcox 14y ago
Because history and polls essentially show that the other candidate winning that state is impossible. They wait until voting closes in that state before calling it as a courtesy. The majority of states could have been called weeks in advance.
pebb 14y ago
He who casts a vote decides nothing. He who counts the votes decides everything
ars 14y ago
There are only 9 states that are actually in question (the battleground states). All the others are known well in advance. They pretend they don't know till the polls close, but it's just to avoid discouraging voters. Load this: http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/results/president/scenarios http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/results/president/scenario... and mark the 9 states as they call them, and you'll know who won.
- Evbn 14y ago
  Annoyingly, that site now redirects to results reporting. Or only on mobile?
  - bryanlarsen 14y ago
    Only on mobile. On the desktop it includes the current results but is still basically the decision tree. However, it doesn't let you choose the states that are already decided. (New Hampshire at the moment).

extesy 14y ago

I like The New York Times coverage more: http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/results/president/big-board http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/results/president/big-boar... - I think it's more visually appealing and also more functional.

zalew 14y ago
I'm not American, but visually I like this one http://edition.cnn.com/election/2012/results/main?hpt=elec_flippertkr http://edition.cnn.com/election/2012/results/main?hpt=elec_f...
- jomohke 14y ago
  The Huffington Post is good too: http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/2012/results http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/2012/results
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
Evbn 14y ago
Weird that Bing has an huge ad on the NYT site, for a site with essentially the same content. I wonder what clickthrough they get. Maybe a lot, as everyone opens 10 different tabs to cycle through sites and get higher throughput on updates.

Fizzadar 14y ago

BBC is my favorite: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20009195 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20009195

danso 14y ago

The NYT (and other news sites...check out the Chicago Tribune's clean map http://elections.chicagotribune.com/results/us-president/ http://elections.chicagotribune.com/results/us-president/)...win hands down in looks and functionality, in such a way that you wonder why Google even tried. They don't appear to have more up-to-date info either. They might have a different source of data but that isn't at all communicated in this format. There must be other, niftier ways to present the data (results and any other kind of data) and chronological structure of our election day than just a map. That said, I hope Google continues to be a real competitor in terms of providing the voting results data.

amalag 14y ago
CT's map is a lot cleaner but it doesn't have the county by county maps that Google does.
- nhebb 14y ago
  The county maps have coloring errors. When I checked Oregon, most of the rural counties voted red but are colored blue.
  - Stratoscope 14y ago
    Ouch. That would be my bug. Fixed now, with my sincere apology and thanks for reporting it. https://code.google.com/p/election-maps/source/detail?r=497599a16f84e77fb644d150d4a73df82e9153ec&repo=2012# https://code.google.com/p/election-maps/source/detail?r=4975...
fjordan 14y ago
This table of calls by network is a nice display of information as well: http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/results/president/network-calls http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/results/president/network-... Edit: It looks to be down at the moment.
andyjsong 14y ago
I like HuffPo the best: http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/2012/results/senate http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/2012/results/senate NYT is starting to stutter.

socialist_coder 14y ago

I dig the InTrade page: http://www.intrade.com/v4/misc/electoral-map/ http://www.intrade.com/v4/misc/electoral-map/

anigbrowl 14y ago

WSJ.com had great looking coverage, but their flash (I think - didn't check) seems to be broken and their map is unusable under load. PBS has the best commentary IMHO, but their website crashed early under load.

grecy 14y ago

...and so, with the way it's going... can we make a decent estimate of the victor?

DigitalSea 14y ago

Wow, surprisingly Google appear to be quite behind in terms of tallying up the votes. The Huffington Post amongst others appear to have way more up-to-date information: http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/2012/results http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/2012/results, disappointing on Google's part.

anigbrowl 14y ago
They're using AP's numbers. I dodn't know why they don't just scrape the state govt websites, which are where all the news orgs are getting their data anyway.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
ww520 14y ago
Yeah, I was surprised Virgina was in red for the longest time in Google's result, while all indicators had it gone blue.

tlogan 14y ago

Regarding Google News real-time coverage, they should call it near-real-time coverage.

brown9-2 14y ago

NPR had a really nice results dashboard also: http://election2012.npr.org/ http://election2012.npr.org/

sagarun 14y ago

Yahoo! http://news.yahoo.com/control-room/ http://news.yahoo.com/control-room/

RyanMcGreal 14y ago

More first-past-the-post foolishness: Obama got 50.3% of the popular vote but 59.9% of the electoral college vote, while Romney got 48.2% of the popular vote but 40.5% of the electoral college vote.

theycallmemorty 14y ago
In the last Canadian federal election, we gave one party a majority government even though they only won 39.62% of the popular vote. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_federal_election,_2011 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_federal_election,_2011
- RyanMcGreal 14y ago
  Absolutely. I'm also Canadian, and therefore sensitized to the issues surrounding FPTP. So far, Canada has somehow resisted the tendency toward a partisan duopoly, but that's a double-edged sword. On the one hand, it means you can actually choose to vote for a progressive party, a moderate party or a conservative party (or a regional party). On the other, it means we get lots of bizarre artifacts, e.g. the 2008 election, in which the NDP had 18% of the vote but only 12% of the seats, while the BQ had 10% of the votes but 17% of the seats.