By now you probably know that the 2016 US election was a “travesty” in which a billionaire businessman won a contested election for president.
But what did the actual results of the election tell us about the world?
We know from a recent report by the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) that Trump, the billionaire businessman, was denied the electoral college vote in November 2016 because of voter fraud allegations against Hillary Clinton.
But, what did that say about the election’s outcome?
What do we actually know about how voters actually cast their ballots in November?
Here are some of the most important things we know about the 2016 presidential election:In the lead up to the election, the US government had been monitoring voting patterns in order to predict who would win.
There was a significant chance that Donald Trump would win the election.
But in the end, he didn’t, with only 54.8% of the electoral vote going to the Democrat, with Clinton winning the electoral votes by nearly 6.4 million.
The US election results were a disappointment to those who had hoped for a change in direction.
For many, the result of the 2016 American election was another “trivesty”, as one Trump supporter put it, in which he lost.
But was that really the case?
As the report noted, “the most reliable indicator of the success of a democracy is the vote.
This is why a good democracy requires a strong electoral vote and that’s why there’s a lot of work being done to ensure that a democratic system is not tainted by fraud”.
This was certainly true for 2016, as it was the first time since the end of the Second World War that the US did not have a democracy, but it didn’t mean that the election was free of corruption.
For a start, there was a serious issue of voter registration fraud.
In the run up to and during the election season, more than 30 million people registered to vote but were not registered.
It is estimated that this is a potential voter fraud problem that could cost millions of dollars in lost votes.
This could also be an indicator of a “winner-take-all” election.
A third reason why the election results could not have been a “miracle” was the fact that the results were “unprecedented”, as Trump was said to have lost the popular vote by “more than 3 million votes”.
The number of people who voted for Donald Trump in the US election could not be more different from that of any other person who has ever been elected to the presidency.
But that’s not the only “truest indicator” of the US electoral system, and it’s not just about Trump’s electoral college win.
It’s also about the way the election system was organised.
According to the CPJ report, in addition to being one of the world’s most transparent elections, the election also marked the beginning of the end for the Electoral College.
As a result, the electors who were chosen to choose the president had no choice but to support Clinton, the Democratic candidate, and voted in favour of her.
The results were then officially declared.
Accordingly, it was not until the final hours of the campaign that Trump’s supporters realised what had happened and they started to protest.
There were protests in front of the Capitol in Washington DC and at Trump Tower in New York City, as well as in several other major cities across the US.
These protests, which eventually resulted in Trump’s resignation as president, were not a spontaneous response to the results.
The reason for these protests was that many electors had been planning to vote for Clinton, who they considered to be the candidate of the Democratic Party.
The US electoral process is a “one man show” that “has long been used to suppress political dissent”, according to CPJ.
It was also the “most secretive system of elections in the world”.
But, if that was the case, why did this matter?
Why did it matter so much?
What exactly did this election mean for the world and the way people vote in the future?
To answer this question, we need to take a closer look at the election itself.
The first step in analysing the 2016 U.S. election is to look at how the electoral system was designed and implemented.
To do this, the CPZJ analysed the voting system used in the election: a direct, winner-take all election.
This system is based on a “double blind” system, where no one is allowed to know the outcome of the vote, but only the winner.
In the US, there are two types of direct winner-takes-all elections: direct winner votes, which are allocated to a candidate on the basis of a single number, and winner-less votes, where a candidate can only win one of three possible candidates, with the loser receiving one of those two votes.
The second type of direct election, winnerless, is also known as “winner take all” or “one-one