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

2016 Postmortem

Showing Original Post only (View all)

FBaggins

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

(538) Recounts Rarely Reverse Election Results [View all]

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
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
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»(538) Recounts Rarely Rev...»Reply #0