(538) Recounts Rarely Reverse Election Results

[FBaggins]

The Wisconsin vote in the presidential election is undergoing a recount. Green Party candidate Jill Stein, who requested the Wisconsin recount, also has raised funds for a recount in Pennsylvania and is seeking more funds for one in Michigan and possibly other states. Could the recounts possibly change the outcome in any of the states? Not if they go anything like statewide recounts over the last 16 years.

Recounts typically don’t swing enough votes to change the winner. Out of 4,687 statewide general elections between 2000 and 2015, just 27 were followed by recounts, according to data compiled by FairVote, a nonpartisan group that researches elections and promotes electoral reform. Just three of those 27 recounts resulted in a change in the outcome, all leading to wins for Democrats: Al Franken’s win in Minnesota’s 2008 U.S. Senate race, Thomas M. Salmon’s win in Vermont’s 2006 auditor election and Christine Gregoire’s win in Washington’s 2004 gubernatorial race.

Recounts also typically don’t change the margin by an amount that would be large enough to affect the result of this year’s presidential election. The mean swing between the top two candidates in the 27 recounts was 282 votes, with a median of 219. The biggest swing came in Florida’s 2000 presidential election recount, when Al Gore cut 1,247 votes off George W. Bush’s lead, ultimately not enough to flip the state to his column. In each state Trump won or leads in, his advantage is more than 10,000 votes, according to counts to far. Some statewide races that have undergone recounts have far fewer votes than the closest states in the 2016 presidential race, but even in percentage terms, the average swing was 0.2 percentage points, which could be enough to flip Michigan but not any other states (and therefore not the Electoral College; even with Michigan, Clinton would be 22 electoral votes short of the 270 needed to win).

...snip...

Citing data from recent recounts, Marc Elias, general counsel for the Hillary Clinton campaign, wrote in a Medium post on Saturday that “the number of votes separating Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton in the closest of these states — Michigan — well exceeds the largest margin ever overcome in a recount.” The Clinton campaign nonetheless will monitor the recount process, as is typical of affected campaigns in recounts.


http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/recounts-rarely-reverse-election-results/

[treestar]

1. there is nothing usual about this one

this whole election has been unusual

[FBaggins]

3. Unusual in impact... but not as unusual as some think

Remember that the polls just before the 2000 election showed Bush ahead by about the same 3-4 points that Clinton was ahead this time. Only a single poll (Zogby) showed Gore getting the 48% that he ended up getting. His average was 44%. There were actually people talking about Gore's only chance being to narrowly win the electoral college while losing the popular vote.

[Madam45for2923]

2. This is an unprecedented year!

[onecaliberal]

4. Dear 538, kindly fuck off.

[MFM008]

5. Thank you.

................

[liquid diamond]

8. 1000

They've lost all credibility.

[DemonGoddess]

9. This!!!

[philosslayer]

20. So there are facts here that are wrong or that you disagree with?

[Ace Rothstein]

24. Why? Because they wrote an article based on facts?

[brooklynite]

26. 538 saying something factual is troubling to you?

[uponit7771]

41. It would be factual is the Russia ... factor .... was included, its not... they're assholes for

... not mentioning it and repeating a RWTP

[brooklynite]

44. The article is about recounts, not the broader issue of campaign dirty tricks

[jodymarie aimee]

6. Nate you ain't the golden boy anymore

so shut the heck up. Your credulity is pretty much shot. We begin recount process in Stevens Point WI tomorrow AM. Exciting.

[FBaggins]

7. People keep telling him that...

... then getting egg on their faces.

[ucrdem]

10. Franken's recount was epic, but he won it.

I think a lot depends on what they're allowed to look at (early votes, provisional ballots, spoiled ballots, etc) so this one probably isn't going to be any easier, deadline or no deadline.

[FBaggins]

12. That was initially a 225 vote margin

It's understatement in the extreme to say "this one probably isn't going to be any easier"

[TheFrenchRazor]

31. well, the russians probably didn't care that much about a minn senate race. nt

[jmg257]

11. He's one of the guys who said the "suspicious" data the computer scientist came up with

could be explained away using the proper controls. Maybe he didn't want to be wrong again?

"Some data scientists and political statisticians, including FiveThirtyEight’s Nate Silver and The New York Times’ Nate Cohn, cast doubt on the claims, which compared voting in counties that used paper ballots with those that used electronic machines. Silver and Cohn said the suspicious results disappear when controlling for demographic factors like race and education"

[FBaggins]

13. Sorry... that post reads as though he had been proven wrong

Was that your intention?

[jmg257]

18. He is likely right, as the computer guy himself said, likely not hacking involved.

We will get to see if a recount might show otherwise.

[LisaL]

28. If there were hacking, how would recount show otherwise?

[jmg257]

34. beats me - figure they have to be recounting for some reason (other then "threatening democracy"). n

[bigmonkey]

14. Perhaps Mordor is too powerful.

The age of the humans is over now, we should just admit that?

[FBaggins]

15. Love it!

[bigmonkey]

16. Really?

You can't see the irony in my post? Why name yourself after a character who carried on long after he should have given up, and eventually prevailed, when your emphasis appears to be discouraging others. I could be wrong, I certainly hoped I was.

[FBaggins]

19. Certainly

I "got" the connection between my user nic and meme's such as "Frodo failed, Bush has the ring!" and it matched how I feel about the latest election - but didn't see it as ironic because I'm not trying to discourage people (at least, not from supporting a couple recounts). I'm entirely in favor of the recounts. I'd like nothing more than to wake up to find that the last two weeks have just been a nightmare.

It just isn't likely to happen. We have some people calling for martial law and a presidential emergency decree suspending the electoral college while the polls are opened back up in several states. We have 100+post threads looking at normal count corrections that cannot possibly be fraud and ranting about them as though they were proof of a stolen election. I'd very much like a return to rationality. I see that as a positive thing... not discouraging.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

22. Thank you

That's what I've been saying all along - recount away, but the chances of it changing the outcome are infinitesimally small.

Do we even know yet how much of PA will be counted?

[FBaggins]

23. I don't know that PA will be recounted

The race there wasn't particularly close (in terms of recount standards) and their recount statute doesn't favor Stein. I think it's also machine-only (without paper backup)... so there isn't much to recount other than verifying that the numbers match and add up (which is what a canvass does).

It also doesn't matter much. We really only need one or two states. Michigan would be ideal because they use paper ballots and it was the closest state (of those that Trump won). If something underhanded was being done with the actual vote, then it would show up there. If that falls apart for Trump than the whole thing could come unraveled.

[bigmonkey]

50. It's no public service to throw cold water on attempts to improve the situation.

Someone taking a rhetorical stance like I take yours to be from your posts would be asked to exit any brainstorming session. I see no point in discouraging others from taking action.

There's a whole development process where protests can transform themselves into solutions, but not in the framework you appear to be trying to establish. Would you disagree that you are trying to frame recounts and other actions proposed now as certainly pointless? That's what it seems like to me, and I'll keep pointing that out.

[JHan]

27. Why can't we rec message replies???????

[TheBlackAdder]

17. Does Debbie Downer have a brother?

.


There is a consistent theme with many of your posts.


.

[tavernier]

21. Don't care.

Anything to f::k with them works for me.

[okasha]

25. We've never had an election before

that might have been directly tampered with by an unfriendly if not hostile power.

Precedents do not apply here.

[wisteria]

29. I could care less what they think anymore.

538 seems to have become a Republican tool.

[LisaL]

30. He is only telling the truth.

Chances of three states flipping after a recount are astronomical.

[TheFrenchRazor]

32. don't care; machines are hackable; i don't trust 'em. lemme see the paper. nt

[LisaL]

35. What paper? Paper isn't going to magically appear during

a recount if paper ballots weren't used to begin with.

[uponit7771]

42. He's telling a half truth, there's little mention of Russia

[DFW]

33. "Rarely" does not equal "never."

Just the mere announcement of the recount led Wisconsin to "discover" 5000 fictitious votes for Trump before they even got started! We are not dealing merely with a recounting of undisputed votes. We are dealing with the issue of whether tens of thousands of Trump votes were even cast at all. A fraud THAT massive, one might ask? Who has ever stopped it before, I answer. Ohio, 2004 comes to mind.

As for recounts changing original counts, I have three words: Senator Al Franken (2008).

Yes, I realize the 2008 senatorial vote in Minnesota was far closer than anything discussed here, but the governor of Minnesota wasn't a corrupt crook like Wisconsin's Walker or Michigan's Snyder, either.

[forthemiddle]

36. Just to be clear

The 5000 votes were not discovered after the recount was announced.
The initial vote count was wrong on election night, either a transcription, or reporting error.
The mistakes were found while canvassing and corrected immediately, which is what canvassing is done for.

I forgot to add that I am for this recount.

[DFW]

37. It's odd, in that case, that this was not widely reported until the end of last week

But if your report is accurate, then I stand corrected.

[forthemiddle]

38. I live in one of the districts

It probably wasn't reported, because this happens every election.
That is why they do the canvassing.

[DFW]

39. It certainly mattered this time more than in other elections eom

[forthemiddle]

43. yes

Here is a link to snopes
http://www.snopes.com/2016/11/25/wisconsin-to-recount-ballots-after-claims-of-irregularities/

The explanation is in the middle of the article. It was corrected the morning after the election.

[uponit7771]

40. 538 IS WRONG ON ITS FACE because its leaving out the Russian factor at best

[brooklynite]

45. How will knowing about Russia roll change the outcome?

Do you know how many chose to change their vote based on misinformation?

[uponit7771]

46. THAT, Russian played a part is the variance here... 538 ignored that seeing no one knows

... how big or small part they played.

Without knowing they could've just factored that and said we don't know

[brooklynite]

48. ...no, Russia's roll has no impact on the recount

Did it have an impact? Maybe.

Is it possible to know how many voted based on their involvement? No.

Will the recount reveal anything related to Russian involvement? No.

The recount, not the overall conduct of the election is the news story here.

[uponit7771]

49. Maybe is horrible and 538 should factor that in instead of ignoring it and yes its possible

... with an audit to know how many votes were involved.

I don't believe that part at all, if there are huge variances then start a full scale audit then recount

[kcr]

47. So? Who cares. That doesn't mean you never do them.

I don't get the point of this.