

Google Election Results - fjordan
http://www.google.com/elections/ed/us/results

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

~~~
zalew
I'm not American, but visually I like this one
[http://edition.cnn.com/election/2012/results/main?hpt=elec_f...](http://edition.cnn.com/election/2012/results/main?hpt=elec_flippertkr)

~~~
jomohke
The Huffington Post is good too:
<http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/2012/results>

------
chill1
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.

~~~
ars
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/scenario...](http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/results/president/scenarios)
and mark the 9 states as they call them, and you'll know who won.

~~~
Evbn
Annoyingly, that site now redirects to results reporting.

Or only on mobile?

~~~
bryanlarsen
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).

------
curiousDog
Bing has the same: <http://www.bing.com/elections/>

~~~
esusatyo
Yeah Spiderman uses Bing, we should too.

------
dripton
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?

~~~
Evbn
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
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.

------
DigitalSea
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>, disappointing
on Google's part.

~~~
anigbrowl
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.

------
danso
The NYT (and other news sites...check out the Chicago Tribune's clean map
<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
CT's map is a lot cleaner but it doesn't have the county by county maps that
Google does.

~~~
nhebb
The county maps have coloring errors. When I checked Oregon, most of the rural
counties voted red but are colored blue.

~~~
Stratoscope
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=4975...](https://code.google.com/p/election-
maps/source/detail?r=497599a16f84e77fb644d150d4a73df82e9153ec&repo=2012#)

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

~~~
JaggedJax
According to the current total vote count I see on both, Google is more up to
date by a few thousand votes.

~~~
thaumaturgy
Odd. A spot check of a few states is showing a much higher vote count in
Politico's graph.

~~~
JaggedJax
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.

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

------
brown9-2
NPR had a really nice results dashboard also: <http://election2012.npr.org/>

------
anigbrowl
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.

------
RyanMcGreal
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
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>

~~~
RyanMcGreal
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.

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

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

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

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

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

