A quick tutorial on recounts
Given all the confetti flying around CA16 votes, it's important to remember why recounts happen and what the accepted protocols are. Simply put, a recount is “a retabulation of the votes cast in an election.” It's meant to corroborate the certified election results such that election officials can ensure that all the ballots cast are counted accurately and that the correct candidate or ballot issue wins. Fairvote.org unpacks the specifics. Spoiler alert: recounts rarely change many votes, very rarely change outcomes, although they sometimes do in super tight races.
Conducting election recounts to ensure fair, accurate, and genuine democratic outcomes is a critical component of effective election administration. Trust in elections requires trust in a jurisdiction’s recount process. It is an ongoing learning experience for election administrators to conduct efficient and reputable recounts, as well as to determine when victory margins and data from post-election audits should trigger a recount. In this report, we quantify various aspects of statewide recounts in the United States between 2000 and 2023, including how often they occur, how often they change outcomes, and how much vote totals change. We also use this analysis to make recommendations for policymakers on recount laws. Our main findings are:
Statewide recounts are rare: Out of the 6,929 statewide general elections between 2000 and 2023, there were 36 statewide recounts. In other words, there was one recount for every 192 statewide elections.
Outcome reversals are even rarer: Recounts resulted in only three reversals, or one out of every 2,310 statewide elections. All three reversals occurred when the initial margin was less than 0.06% of all votes cast for the top two candidates. The last statewide recount reversal was the 2008 U.S. Senate race in Minnesota.
Recounts tend to shift only a small number of votes: Statewide recounts resulted in an average margin shift of 551 votes between the frontrunners, representing 0.03% of the vote. Recounts typically widen the gap between the top two candidates instead of decreasing it.
States should require automatic recounts in close races: When the margin is very close, a recount should occur automatically without a candidate or voters having to petition for one. A threshold of 0.1% to trigger an automatic recount is sufficient to capture all races that are close enough for an outcome reversal to be plausible.
A threshold for campaign-funded recounts should be established to prevent frivolous recounts: The recent trend of recounts for races with no realistic possibility of an outcome reversal reveals a flaw in the recount statutes in many states. Most states that allow campaign-requested recounts have no upper limit on when these recounts may be requested. Allowing campaign-requested recounts only for close races would prevent frivolous recounts and prevent a decline in voter confidence in our elections.
Recount laws should go hand-in-hand with rigorous post-election audit procedures: Post-election audits should be tailored to the margins in each race, and the number of audited ballots should increase in relation to the percentage of discrepancies found as the audit progresses.
Read the whole thing here.
Follow Opportunity Now on Twitter @svopportunity
Opp Now enthusiastically welcomes smart, thoughtful, fair-minded, well-written comments from our readers. But be advised: we have zero interest in posting rants, ad hominems, poorly-argued screeds, transparently partisan yack, or the hateful name-calling often seen on other local websites. So if you've got a great idea that will add to the conversation, please send it in. If you're trolling or shilling for a candidate or initiative, forget it.