Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

FBaggins

(27,616 posts)
Sun Nov 27, 2016, 08:06 PM Nov 2016

(538) Recounts Rarely Reverse Election Results

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/
50 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
(538) Recounts Rarely Reverse Election Results (Original Post) FBaggins Nov 2016 OP
there is nothing usual about this one treestar Nov 2016 #1
Unusual in impact... but not as unusual as some think FBaggins Nov 2016 #3
This is an unprecedented year! Madam45for2923 Nov 2016 #2
Dear 538, kindly fuck off. onecaliberal Nov 2016 #4
Thank you. MFM008 Nov 2016 #5
1000 liquid diamond Nov 2016 #8
This!!! DemonGoddess Nov 2016 #9
So there are facts here that are wrong or that you disagree with? philosslayer Nov 2016 #20
Why? Because they wrote an article based on facts? Ace Rothstein Nov 2016 #24
538 saying something factual is troubling to you? brooklynite Nov 2016 #26
It would be factual is the Russia ... factor .... was included, its not... they're assholes for uponit7771 Nov 2016 #41
The article is about recounts, not the broader issue of campaign dirty tricks brooklynite Nov 2016 #44
Nate you ain't the golden boy anymore jodymarie aimee Nov 2016 #6
People keep telling him that... FBaggins Nov 2016 #7
Franken's recount was epic, but he won it. ucrdem Nov 2016 #10
That was initially a 225 vote margin FBaggins Nov 2016 #12
well, the russians probably didn't care that much about a minn senate race. nt TheFrenchRazor Nov 2016 #31
He's one of the guys who said the "suspicious" data the computer scientist came up with jmg257 Nov 2016 #11
Sorry... that post reads as though he had been proven wrong FBaggins Nov 2016 #13
He is likely right, as the computer guy himself said, likely not hacking involved. jmg257 Nov 2016 #18
If there were hacking, how would recount show otherwise? LisaL Nov 2016 #28
beats me - figure they have to be recounting for some reason (other then "threatening democracy"). n jmg257 Nov 2016 #34
Perhaps Mordor is too powerful. bigmonkey Nov 2016 #14
Love it! FBaggins Nov 2016 #15
Really? bigmonkey Nov 2016 #16
Certainly FBaggins Nov 2016 #19
Thank you SickOfTheOnePct Nov 2016 #22
I don't know that PA will be recounted FBaggins Nov 2016 #23
It's no public service to throw cold water on attempts to improve the situation. bigmonkey Nov 2016 #50
Why can't we rec message replies??????? JHan Nov 2016 #27
Does Debbie Downer have a brother? TheBlackAdder Nov 2016 #17
Don't care. tavernier Nov 2016 #21
We've never had an election before okasha Nov 2016 #25
I could care less what they think anymore. wisteria Nov 2016 #29
He is only telling the truth. LisaL Nov 2016 #30
don't care; machines are hackable; i don't trust 'em. lemme see the paper. nt TheFrenchRazor Nov 2016 #32
What paper? Paper isn't going to magically appear during LisaL Nov 2016 #35
He's telling a half truth, there's little mention of Russia uponit7771 Nov 2016 #42
"Rarely" does not equal "never." DFW Nov 2016 #33
Just to be clear forthemiddle Nov 2016 #36
It's odd, in that case, that this was not widely reported until the end of last week DFW Nov 2016 #37
I live in one of the districts forthemiddle Nov 2016 #38
It certainly mattered this time more than in other elections eom DFW Nov 2016 #39
yes forthemiddle Nov 2016 #43
538 IS WRONG ON ITS FACE because its leaving out the Russian factor at best uponit7771 Nov 2016 #40
How will knowing about Russia roll change the outcome? brooklynite Nov 2016 #45
THAT, Russian played a part is the variance here... 538 ignored that seeing no one knows uponit7771 Nov 2016 #46
...no, Russia's roll has no impact on the recount brooklynite Nov 2016 #48
Maybe is horrible and 538 should factor that in instead of ignoring it and yes its possible uponit7771 Nov 2016 #49
So? Who cares. That doesn't mean you never do them. kcr Nov 2016 #47

FBaggins

(27,616 posts)
3. Unusual in impact... but not as unusual as some think
Sun Nov 27, 2016, 08:14 PM
Nov 2016

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.

uponit7771

(91,670 posts)
41. It would be factual is the Russia ... factor .... was included, its not... they're assholes for
Mon Nov 28, 2016, 08:39 AM
Nov 2016

... not mentioning it and repeating a RWTP

 

jodymarie aimee

(3,975 posts)
6. Nate you ain't the golden boy anymore
Sun Nov 27, 2016, 08:37 PM
Nov 2016

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

ucrdem

(15,703 posts)
10. Franken's recount was epic, but he won it.
Sun Nov 27, 2016, 09:08 PM
Nov 2016

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

(27,616 posts)
12. That was initially a 225 vote margin
Sun Nov 27, 2016, 09:10 PM
Nov 2016

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

jmg257

(11,996 posts)
11. He's one of the guys who said the "suspicious" data the computer scientist came up with
Sun Nov 27, 2016, 09:09 PM
Nov 2016

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"

jmg257

(11,996 posts)
18. He is likely right, as the computer guy himself said, likely not hacking involved.
Sun Nov 27, 2016, 09:43 PM
Nov 2016

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

jmg257

(11,996 posts)
34. beats me - figure they have to be recounting for some reason (other then "threatening democracy"). n
Mon Nov 28, 2016, 08:09 AM
Nov 2016

bigmonkey

(1,798 posts)
16. Really?
Sun Nov 27, 2016, 09:28 PM
Nov 2016

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

(27,616 posts)
19. Certainly
Sun Nov 27, 2016, 09:52 PM
Nov 2016

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

(7,297 posts)
22. Thank you
Sun Nov 27, 2016, 10:22 PM
Nov 2016

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

(27,616 posts)
23. I don't know that PA will be recounted
Sun Nov 27, 2016, 10:30 PM
Nov 2016

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

(1,798 posts)
50. It's no public service to throw cold water on attempts to improve the situation.
Mon Nov 28, 2016, 06:48 PM
Nov 2016

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.

okasha

(11,573 posts)
25. We've never had an election before
Sun Nov 27, 2016, 11:43 PM
Nov 2016

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

Precedents do not apply here.

LisaL

(46,588 posts)
35. What paper? Paper isn't going to magically appear during
Mon Nov 28, 2016, 08:11 AM
Nov 2016

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

DFW

(56,448 posts)
33. "Rarely" does not equal "never."
Mon Nov 28, 2016, 03:09 AM
Nov 2016

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

(1,433 posts)
36. Just to be clear
Mon Nov 28, 2016, 08:32 AM
Nov 2016

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

(56,448 posts)
37. It's odd, in that case, that this was not widely reported until the end of last week
Mon Nov 28, 2016, 08:35 AM
Nov 2016

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

forthemiddle

(1,433 posts)
38. I live in one of the districts
Mon Nov 28, 2016, 08:36 AM
Nov 2016

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

 

brooklynite

(96,882 posts)
45. How will knowing about Russia roll change the outcome?
Mon Nov 28, 2016, 09:13 AM
Nov 2016

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

uponit7771

(91,670 posts)
46. THAT, Russian played a part is the variance here... 538 ignored that seeing no one knows
Mon Nov 28, 2016, 01:10 PM
Nov 2016

... how big or small part they played.

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

 

brooklynite

(96,882 posts)
48. ...no, Russia's roll has no impact on the recount
Mon Nov 28, 2016, 01:50 PM
Nov 2016

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

(91,670 posts)
49. Maybe is horrible and 538 should factor that in instead of ignoring it and yes its possible
Mon Nov 28, 2016, 03:22 PM
Nov 2016

... 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

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»(538) Recounts Rarely Rev...