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)(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 dont 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 Frankens win in Minnesotas 2008 U.S. Senate race, Thomas M. Salmons win in Vermonts 2006 auditor election and Christine Gregoires win in Washingtons 2004 gubernatorial race.
Recounts also typically dont change the margin by an amount that would be large enough to affect the result of this years 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 Floridas 2000 presidential election recount, when Al Gore cut 1,247 votes off George W. Bushs 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/
Recounts typically dont 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 Frankens win in Minnesotas 2008 U.S. Senate race, Thomas M. Salmons win in Vermonts 2006 auditor election and Christine Gregoires win in Washingtons 2004 gubernatorial race.
Recounts also typically dont change the margin by an amount that would be large enough to affect the result of this years 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 Floridas 2000 presidential election recount, when Al Gore cut 1,247 votes off George W. Bushs 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/
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
50 replies, 8546 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (3)
ReplyReply to this post
50 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
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
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
He is likely right, as the computer guy himself said, likely not hacking involved.
jmg257
Nov 2016
#18
beats me - figure they have to be recounting for some reason (other then "threatening democracy"). n
jmg257
Nov 2016
#34
It's no public service to throw cold water on attempts to improve the situation.
bigmonkey
Nov 2016
#50
don't care; machines are hackable; i don't trust 'em. lemme see the paper. nt
TheFrenchRazor
Nov 2016
#32
It's odd, in that case, that this was not widely reported until the end of last week
DFW
Nov 2016
#37
THAT, Russian played a part is the variance here... 538 ignored that seeing no one knows
uponit7771
Nov 2016
#46
Maybe is horrible and 538 should factor that in instead of ignoring it and yes its possible
uponit7771
Nov 2016
#49