Introduction: The social media have had relationship with US election and how social media has shaped US election. (Social media playing vital role in election.) Explanation: In other words Social media =Changing individuals’ views, campaign engagement ↑, political participation in front of public.... (Used) in US election Evidence: According to Sternberg (2009), Political parties and candidates= (used) social media extensively ↔ with voters... rather than ↔ conventional media, media conferences. Such as = YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and many more. For instance, McMahon (2016) reports that, in 2012 election democratic party candidate Barack Obama = social media (utilised). Obama = spend $47 million for digital campaign > Republican Party candidate Romney. As a results, Obama= 633,597 likes on facebook. It’s doubled than Romney. Body 1: T.S: Perhaps the most significant effect of social media on U.S. elections is the increase online engagements amongst internet users. Cause 1: Digital campaigns In other words, candidates (spent) → significant amount of money →digital campaign in order to↑ internet user engagement. According to Pramuk (2016), political parties = millions of dollars → promote campaign → people. For example, $238.9 million + $450.6 million = Trump + Clinton →respectively in mid Oct(2016)= campaign- (Pramuk, 2016) Another example, Trump’s campaign→ (funded) $90 million→ Parscale’s San Antonio-based firm= digital advertising. Moreover, candidates → updates (post) (social media) ↑ engagements with people Indeed, within three weeks → political parties → significant (post) Facebook, Twitter acc. = Clinton, Trump, Bernie=new digital campaign tools. (Acc to Pew Research Centre, 18 July 2016) For instance, 714 tweets, 389 facebook post →(made) candidates → May 11 to May 31, 2016= average in one day 5-7 post in facebook and 11-12 tweets per day - candidates. (Acc to Pew Research Centre, 18 July 2016) To sum up, Body 2: Effect 1: T.S: One of the most obvious effects of social media is that engagement can be increased by social media. Acc to Hamilton (n.d), successful → (use) social media → candidates’ campaign → (could) ↑ engagement of young youth. For example, 18-29 age group people → internet (online) → 95% in USA [Hamilton (n.d)] Moreover, Candidates (expose) → views → people.→ (could) change individuals’ opinion. Chances of winning % ↑ Indeed, people had changed their minds by expressing relevant post on social media which were posted by political parties. [Acc to Pew Research Centre, 2016] For example, “Respondents who indicated they had changed their minds about Clinton were more than three times as likely to say that their opinion changed in a negative direction rather than a positive one (24% vs. 7%), and respondents who mentioned Trump were nearly five times as likely to say that their opinion became more negative as opposed to more positive (19% vs. 4%)” reported by Pew Research Center (n.d). Furthermore, no. voters = (can) ↑ by digital campaign on social media. For fake news: Evi and Ex This phenomenon is particularly pronounced on Facebook, whose algorithms are tuned to maximise “engagement”, meaning they present users with the type of content they have already been shown to like in order to keep them on the site as long as possible and comment on it or share it. “Trump and his camp essentially hacked Facebook’s algorithm,” says Matthew Hindman of George Washington University. Hundreds of online publications spewed out pro-Trump propaganda, as well as a steady stream of fake news. Left-wing sites published reams of the stuff too, but their output is estimated to have been lower in volume. Mr Trump’s most valuable media tool was his Twitter feed, currently followed by 15.4m people.