Do you expect the counts to change the results? Don’t bet on it, say experts – Firstpost

Everyone knows that America is bitterly divided. This November, some elections will be very contested.

You can even read about officials ordering counts. But don’t let that put you off. Countouts don’t really change the winner.

“The (original) count is pretty accurate because the machines work, they work very well,” said Tammy Patrick, a former Arizona election official who is now part of the National Association of Election Officials. “We have counts and we have audits to make sure we’ve done it right.”

There have been 36 statewide general election recounts since the most famous U.S. recount in 2000. That year, Republican George W. Bush held onto his lead over Democrat Al Gore in Florida — and won the presidency— after a recount was stopped by the Supreme Court.

Since then, only three of those statewide recounts have resulted in a new winner, and all three were decided by hundreds of votes, not thousands. That’s according to an Associated Press review of statewide tallies using data from the AP vote count, state election offices and research by FairVote, a nonpartisan organization that researches elections and advocates for change in the way the elections are conducted.

Most states allow recounts when the margin between the top candidates is within a specific margin, such as 0.5 percentage points, even when that means the number of votes separating them is actually thousands or even tens of thousands. But there is no precedent for a recount changing the winner in a race with such wide margins, at least not since Congress made sweeping changes to US election law in 2002.

The most recent state race overturned by a recount was in 2008 in Minnesota. Republican Sen. Norm Coleman led Democrat Al Franken by 215 votes in the initial count, out of more than 2.9 million votes cast. After a manual count, Franken won by 225 votes, a shift of 0.02 percentage points or two hundredths of a percentage point.

Among the 36 statewide recounts since 2000, the average change in the winning margin, whether it grew or shrank, was 0.03 percentage points. The biggest change was 0.11 percentage points in a relatively low-turnout race for Vermont auditor in 2006. In that race, Republican incumbent Randy Brock led Democrat Thomas Salmon by 137 votes after the initial count A recount flipped the race and Salmon won by 102 votes.

Counting is not limited to general elections. They also go to primary school.

Earlier this year, the Washington state primary for commissioner of public lands went to a recount after the initial count had Democrat Dave Upthegrove leading Republican Sue Kuehl Pederson by 51 votes, out of more than 1. 9 million votes counted as they competed for second place.

After the recount, Upthegrove’s lead was reduced to just two votes. In Washington’s primary system, the top two candidates advance to the general election, regardless of political party.

There are even more counts in down-ballot races that are sometimes decided by a handful of votes. But even in these low-turnout elections, recounts rarely change the winners.

“The recounts are changing a very small number of votes,” said Deb Otis, FairVote’s director of research and policy. “We will see recounts in 2024 that will not change the outcome.”

States have a wide variety of laws about when and how counts are conducted. Many states have automatic recounts if the margin between the two primary candidates is within a certain margin. The most common margin is 0.5 percentage points, but there is a lot of variation. Some states allow candidates to request recounts, but require them to pay for them unless the winner changes.

Alaska, Montana, South Dakota and Texas are only counted if there is an exact tie, although candidates in those states can request a recount. South Carolina has automatic recounts if the margin between the top two candidates is 1 percent or less of the total votes cast in the race.

The PA may declare a winner of a race eligible for a recount if it determines that the lead is too great for a recount or legal challenge to change the result.

In Washington’s public lands primary, which was ultimately decided by 49 votes, the AP waited until after the count to declare the winner because the margin was so close. But in cases where the number of votes separating the top candidates is greater, such as in a statewide race where the candidates are separated by thousands or tens of thousands of votes, the AP may determine that it is not possible for a count reverse the result. .

Statewide recounts almost always change results by a few votes.

Patrick said this is usually due to human error, either by a poll worker or the voters. For example, paper ballots are often rejected because voters did not fill them out correctly, but may later be added to the count after a review.

Paper ballots typically require voters to fill in small bubbles next to their chosen candidate, just like students taking standardized tests. The tabulating machines count the votes by looking for a mark in a very specific area of ​​the ballot, Patrick said. If voters indicate their preference in another way, such as by circling their chosen candidate, the machines will not count the vote.

In some states, bipartisan panels review rejected ballots to see if they can determine voter intent. Some states do these reviews whether or not there is a count. Other states only do them if there is a count. Still others do not make such checks and the ballots are simply rejected.

Patrick said he has seen ballots marked in many different ways that were not picked up by the tabulating machines, such as voters using crayons or marking their choices with a marker.

In the Minnesota recount, one voter submitted Franken’s point, but also wrote “Lizard People” in the write-in ballot box. The ballot was rejected.

“Voters do a lot of really cool things with their ballots,” Patrick said.