Google has the ability to drive millions of votes to a candidate with no one the wiser. \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tBy ROBERT EPSTEIN America's next president could be eased into office not just by TV ads or speeches, but by Google's secret decisions, and no one-except for me and perhaps a few other obscure researchers-would know how this was accomplished. \t\t\t\t\t\t\tResearch I have been directing in recent years suggests that Google, Inc., has amassed far more power to control elections-indeed, to control a wide variety of opinions and beliefs-than any company in history has ever had. Google's search algorithm can easily shift the voting preferences of undecided voters by 20 percent or more-up to 80 percent in some demographic groups-with virtually no one knowing they are being manipulated, according to experiments I conducted recently with Ronald E. Robertson. Given that many elections are won by small margins, this gives Google the power, right now, to flip upwards of 25 percent of the national elections worldwide. In the United States, half of our presidential elections have been won by margins under 7.6 percent, and the 2012 election was won by a margin of only 3.9 percent-well within Google's control. \t \t\t\t\t\t\tThere are at least three very real scenarios whereby Google-perhaps even without its leaders' knowledge-could shape or even decide the election next year. Whether or not Google executives see it this way, the employees who constantly adjust the search giant's algorithms are manipulating people every minute of every day. The adjustments they make increasingly influence our thinking-including, it turns out, our voting preferences. What we call in our research the Search Engine Manipulation Effect (SEME) turns out to be one of the largest behavioral effects ever discovered. Our comprehensive new study, just published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), includes the results of five experiments we conducted with more than 4,500 participants in two countries. Because SEME is virtually invisible as a form of social influence, because the effect is so large and because there are currently no specific regulations anywhere in the world that would prevent Google from using and abusing this technique, we believe SEME is a serious threat to the democratic system of government. According to Google Trends, at this writing Donald Trump is currently trouncing all other candidates in search activity in 47 of 50 states. Could this activity push him higher in search rankings, and could higher rankings in turn bring him more support? Most definitely-depending, that is, on how Google employees choose to adjust numeric weightings in the search algorithm. Google acknowledges adjusting the algorithm 600 times a year, but the process is secret, so what effect Mr. Trump's success will have on how he shows up in Google searches is presumably out of his hands. Our new research leaves little doubt about whether Google has the ability to control voters. In laboratory and online experiments conducted in the United States, we were able to boost the proportion of people who favored any candidate by between 37 and 63 percent after just one search session. The impact of viewing biased rankings repeatedly over a period of weeks or months would undoubtedly be larger. In our basic experiment, participants were randomly assigned to one of three groups in which search rankings favored either Candidate A, Candidate B or neither candidate. Participants were given brief descriptions of each candidate and then asked how much they liked and trusted each candidate and whom they would vote for. Then they were allowed up to 15 minutes to conduct online research on the candidates using a Google-like search engine we created called Kadoodle. Each group had access to the same 30 search results-all real search results linking to real web pages from a past election. Only the ordering of the results differed in the three groups. People could click freely on any result or shift between any of five different results pages, just as one can on Google's search engine. When our participants were done searching, we asked them those questions again, and, voilà : On all measures, opinions shifted in the direction of the candidate who was favored in the rankings. Trust, liking and voting preferences all shifted predictably. More alarmingly, we also demonstrated this shift with real voters during an actual electoral campaign-in an experiment conducted with more than 2,000 eligible, undecided voters throughout India during the 2014 Lok Sabha election there-the largest democratic election in history, with more than 800 million eligible voters and 480 million votes ultimately cast. Even here, with real voters who were highly familiar with the candidates and who were being bombarded with campaign rhetoric every day, we showed that search rankings could boost the proportion of people favoring any candidate by more than 20 percent-more than 60 percent in some demographic groups. Given how powerful this effect is, it's possible that Google decided the winner of the Indian election. Google's own daily data on election-related search activity (subsequently removed from the Internet, but not before my colleagues and I downloaded the pages) showed that Narendra Modi, the ultimate winner, outscored his rivals in search activity by more than 25 percent for sixty-one consecutive days before the final votes were cast. That high volume of search activity could easily have been generated by higher search rankings for Modi. Google's official commenton SEME research is always the same: “Providing relevant answers has been the cornerstone of Google's approach to search from the very beginning. It would undermine the people's trust in our results and company if we were to change course.†Could any comment be more meaningless? How does providing “relevant answers†to election-related questions rule out the possibility of favoring one candidate over another in search rankings? Google's statement seems far short of a blanket denial that it ever puts its finger on the scales. There are three credible scenarios under which Google could easily be flipping elections worldwide as you read this: First, there is the Scenario: Google's executives decide which candidate is best for us-and for the company, of course-and they fiddle with search rankings accordingly. There is precedent in the United States for this kind of backroom king-making. Rutherford B. Hayes, the 19th president of the United States, was put into office in part because of strong support by . In the late 1800s, had a monopoly on communications in America, and just before the election of 1876, the company did its best to assure that only positive news stories about Hayes appeared in newspapers nationwide. It also shared all the telegrams sent by his opponent's campaign staff with Hayes's staff. Perhaps the most effective way to wield political influence in today's high-tech world is to donate money to a candidate and then to use technology to make sure he or she wins. The technology guarantees the win, and the donation guarantees allegiance, which Google has certainly tapped in recent years with the Obama administration.
This is very troubling except for the fact that "we the people" have zero say in who gets elected as POTUS. The powers that be will just change the rules if an outsider starts gaining ground(see what happened at 2012 RNC to Ron Paul) also popular vote doesn't mean shit(see Bush vs. Gore). So in the end the powers that be will give us the illusion of a choice between two candidates who on paper are very similar but in rhetoric will differ greatly.
The only difference between a smart and dumb conspiracy theorist is that smart conspiracies seem more plausible Interesting to see how this thread turns out -Yuri
they are afraid usually "A vote for this third party candidate is a vote for Obama/bush" Both parties use the same logic and don't even realize it In fact a member here on grass city told me a vote for ron Paul might as well be a vote for Obama, and that if I have conservative ideals I should waste my vote lol -Yuri
It doesn't make sense to be honest. Are Americans lemmings? Or Are the vast majority of those who vote in favor of the status quo?
I agree it doesn't make sense But it is reality. I shit you not, every single person I know admits their chosen candidate isn't the best option, but is afraid of the worse option being elected. We have so much fear mongering about the opposing parties in campaigns that people care more about preventing the other candidate from wining than if their candidates actually win. What Americans really need is to realize that if they all knew eachother thought tthe same way we could elect a third party. But everyone is convinced that everyone else wont partake. -Yuri
Its basically like this. "If candidate a wins, the country is doomed. Candidate c is the best choice but candidate b has the most popularity so he's my best bet at stopping candidate a" Little do you know everyone had the same idea but the media told us we didn't and that a and b are leading in polls and we believed them -Yuri
Sorry forgot about the OP. Google is now part of the machine. There is no doubt about that. Just spend a few weeks using their news service and you will see for yourself. Google, Fox, BBC, peas in a pod.
Stupidity and fear. Also if they did, the electoral college would just ensure the status quo continues.
I too have noticed that as I scroll down their news page and see the sources of the articles they put up....
A big problem is that the entire election process is based around a two party system. Since the days before the Constituion it has always been two parties. Whenever another party gained power it would pull votes from the party with similar ideals, causing the other side to win. Americans became jaded and have kept it the way its been. Since "that's the way things are" the two-party system opens up new offices in each new state, and set things up in each state to make it impossible for anybody but the two-party system to hold offices there. Also the Electoral College makes things worse. Basically, individual votes don't matter at all. The State you vote in is allotted a certain number of votes by population. Depending on what the majority want, that's the direction your state votes by Electoral college members. Whom I think can honestly vote in any direction they want too, they're not tied down by popular vote per the Constituion IIRC. Since most Americans grow up with this they don't protest it. But everybody is tired of it. Congress is at what, 5% approval?
All of us Americans are going to vote for whoever promises us something in return for our vote. not alot of people here have national pride, or for the better of the nation. lot of Americans who vote pick whatever name is marketed the best. The politician is a brand, a character, a person created by what a group of advisors say is what the people want. Say the right key words, the right way, and you win their vote. Be someone cool, and they will vote for you, be the first black guy, they will vote for that, a lot of females say its time for a female,president so I'm going to vote for Hillary. A lot of them, most of them, depend on government benefits to get by, they are going to vote for whoever is going to give them the most. Someone wants to take away befits,they will vote for the other guy.
Americans have a 3rd option though. There is nothing forcing them to vote for the Dem or Rep candidate. The biggest issue is the non voters. If they could be convinced to get off their arses and vote the non Dem/Rep candidate would have a serious chance.
I love how America has to turn its focus onto other countries when in reality, it is the most corrupt out of them all. Our money is our vote, our words mean nothing.
This is actually not fully true. In many states federal and local elections there are massive restriction that make it almost impossible for third party candidates to run. Things like 150,000 signatures or substantial amounts of money which are pretty tough barriers for state elections with extremely low interest/turnout. On top of that most voters are low information voters or single issue voters which means they barely know about the two party candidates that are already running yet alone independent candidates. So in theory a third party candidate could win but in practice it's near impossible unfortunately in many areas. The key to a better political system is more civic involvement/knowledge but that's probably not gonna happen anytime soon, so we'll be stuck with a douchebag or a turd sandwich for a long time.
Who is this 3rd option though? It doesn't exist because the establishment makes sure it doesn't exist, at least in a form that's recognizable for the American people. To be honest, its all very stupid. The worst part is people know its stupid and keep repeating themselves. What's the definition of insanity again? The apathy is very disappointing. This is why a guy like Trump, who "tells it like it is" is so popular right now.
In US state elections there is surely a non Dem/Rep candidate running in the majority of seats? The president does not hold the power, the representatives at state and federal level are the law maker's. Does a candidate running for a state seat need 100,000 odd signatures?
there is a lot of corruption here Most states don't even put the third party candidates on the valor. You have to write it in, making it impossible for them to be elected effectively -Yuri During the last election cycle for nevada, every choice for Senate and house was dem or rep, no third party. Some states even leave the third party off for president too -Yuri