• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Unofficial Election 2016 Results Thread PLEASE

Foolmewunz

Grammar Resistance Leader, TLA Dictator
Foolmewunz
Joined
Aug 11, 2006
Messages
41,468
Location
Pattaya, Thailand
Piecemeal results will start coming in shortly... exit polls, comments from the field about turnout +/-, vote suppression complaints from the Dems, rigging complaints from the GOP....

CAN WE PLEASE USE THIS THREAD TO DISCUSS THE RESULTS AS THEY COME IN (INCLUDING ALL THE ABOVE-LISTED)? There are so many threads with differing points of view that I get dizzy once you all wake up and start posting.

> Hillary trails in the early morning (midnight +1) vote in NH. Doesn't matter because it's minuscule, but it's a result. So for purposes of this thread...

OMG! Trump is leading. I'm moving to Thailand! I can't believe the American public has this guy running much less leading.
 
I just did a tarot card reading and it told me that Hillary is going to win every electoral vote.
 
Last edited:
Can anyone tell me when voting ends and when the first results are expected, ideally in GMT?
 
Ian Osborne said:
Can anyone tell me when voting ends and when the first results are expected, ideally in GMT?
Click to expand...
Polls on the east cost start to close at 7pm EST (12am GMT) so the media will probably start calling states soon after that. Polls close on the west coast at 11pm EST (4am GMT).
 
Tony Stark said:
Polls on the east cost start to close at 7pm EST (12am GMT) so the media will probably start calling states soon after that. Polls close on the west coast at 11pm EST (4am GMT).
Click to expand...

Seriously? The media can report polling results while the polls are still open elsewhere in the country? :eek:
 
Ian Osborne said:
Seriously? The media can report polling results while the polls are still open elsewhere in the country? :eek:
Click to expand...

The media can do whatever it wants. Usually, they won't call a state while the polls from that state are still open.
 
Ian Osborne said:
Seriously? The media can report polling results while the polls are still open elsewhere in the country? :eek:
Click to expand...

They've already started before the polls are open.

Hart's Location New Hampshire already has published the results of their local poll.
 
That surprises me. It would be illegal in the UK. Candidates aren't allowed to reveal the results of postal votes, for example, before the constituency is finally counted and announced.
 
Ian Osborne said:
That surprises me. It would be illegal in the UK. Candidates aren't allowed to reveal the results of postal votes, for example, before the constituency is finally counted and announced.
Click to expand...

The U.S. has far more press freedom in matters like this - for better or worse.

Likewise reporting on crimes. Look at how restricted that is in the UK while a trial is going on and yet in the U.S. T.V. coverage of a perp-walk is quite normal.
 
Ian Osborne said:
That surprises me. It would be illegal in the UK. Candidates aren't allowed to reveal the results of postal votes, for example, before the constituency is finally counted and announced.
Click to expand...

It's been problematic before. Jimmy Carter conceded before the west coast polls had closed.
 
John Jones said:
It's been problematic before. Jimmy Carter conceded before the west coast polls had closed.
Click to expand...

So everyone who didn't like Reagan and hadn't yet voted had the chance to switch to a third-party candidate to stop the Republican in that state. Or people just stayed at home, knowing their candidate had won or lost.

That's why it's illegal in the UK, and in this case, I think ours is the better system.
 
Ian Osborne said:
So everyone who didn't like Reagan and hadn't yet voted had the chance to switch to a third-party candidate to stop the Republican in that state. Or people just stayed at home, knowing their candidate had won or lost.

That's why it's illegal in the UK, and in this case, I think ours is the better system.
Click to expand...

I know it's counter-intuitive, but studies have shown that early results do not actually effect turnout. All of the evidence of people who didn't wait in line is anecdotal. The '12 election was called on all networks before 9:30 pm. As are most elections. The west coast is still voting then.

The dispute in '80 was that Carter conceded at 8:30. The networks had been calling it for a while. So this dates back ten elections, now.

Meh? I'd just do it on the CHANCE that some people wind up self-disenfranchised. Those might've been the eight votes that put that important plebiscite vote over the line.
 
Ian Osborne said:
So everyone who didn't like Reagan and hadn't yet voted had the chance to switch to a third-party candidate to stop the Republican in that state. Or people just stayed at home, knowing their candidate had won or lost.

That's why it's illegal in the UK, and in this case, I think ours is the better system.
Click to expand...

You can't make similar laws here, because they would be inconsistent with the First Amendment. Be tough to make an argument that the need is so compelling that telling people election results isn't a right.
 
Ian Osborne said:
That surprises me. It would be illegal in the UK. Candidates aren't allowed to reveal the results of postal votes, for example, before the constituency is finally counted and announced.
Click to expand...

The mail-in ballots have been running through the counting system in my county but the numbers are in encrypted black-box data objects that will all be read into the tally computer after the polls close.
 
Voted about an hour after the polls opened in my rural Michigan township. Turnout seemed high - I was voter #132, with the norm (from memory) about half that. Republican dominated county. Many of the slots had Republicans running unopposed (I hate that).
 
marplots said:
Voted about an hour after the polls opened in my rural Michigan township. Turnout seemed high - I was voter #132, with the norm (from memory) about half that. Republican dominated county. Many of the slots had Republicans running unopposed (I hate that).
Click to expand...

Agreed. I refuse, on principle, to cast a vote in any unopposed race, regardless of party. Seems undemocratic.
 
Very high turnout in my precinct. I got there at 5:45 and was about sixtieth in line. Two hours later my sister texted me she's there with a hundred people ahead of her in line, and the ballot box for paper ballots is full so they're getting another one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom