Fairvote.org is currently undergoing an upgrade, and some features may not be working as usual. We apologize for any inconvenience, and expect to be back at full capacity soon.

Everything You Wanted to Know about Election Recounts  Comprehensive report analyzes statewide recounts in 2000-2009 decade

Released April 28, 2011





TAKOMA PARK, MD:  FairVote -The Center for Voting and Democracy today released its new report on statewide recounts as the state of Wisconsin launches a statewide recount in a hotly contested election for a seat on its state supreme court. A Survey and Analysis of Statewide Election Recounts, 2000-2009 is available online, along with detailed data compiled for the report.

Rob Richie, FairVote's longtime executive director, co-authored the report with FairVote democracy fellow Emily Hellman. "The ability to handle a recount of votes to ensure fair, accurate and genuinely democratic outcomes is widely recognized as a critical component of election administration," commented Richie. "Trust in elections requires trust in the recount process."

FairVote's report  examines statewide election recount outcomes and practices in the United States, using data from the decade of elections taking place in the years 2000 to 2009 to determine how often they occur, how often they change outcomes, how much vote totals change and how these figures vary with the size of the electorate. Key findings include:

Statewide recounts are rare: Out of the 2,884 statewide general elections in the 2000 to 2009 decade, there were 18 statewide recounts, 11 of which were deemed "consequential"(with an original victory margin of no more than 0.15 percent). In other words, there was one recount for every 160 statewide elections and one consequential recount for every 262 statewide elections. This pattern was true of most subcategories of statewide elections as well, including only two consequential recounts out of the 422 elections in this period for the offices of governor, lieutenant governor, secretary of state, attorney general and treasurer.

Outcome reversals are even rarer: Recounts resulted in three reversals out of 11 consequential recounts, or one out of every 961 statewide elections in 2000-2009. These reversals took place in the races for U.S. Senate in 2008 in Minnesota, auditor in 2006 in Vermont and governor in 2004 in Washington.

Margin shifts in recounts are small: Statewide recounts resulted in an average shift in the victory margin of 296 votes, representing 0.027% of the statewide vote in those elections. The median shift in margin was 229 votes, with 15 of the 18 recounts changing the victory margin by fewer than 500 votes.

Margin shifts are smaller and recounts rarer in larger electorates: Recounts in elections with more voters altered the vote margin by lower percentages than in elections with fewer voters. In the five cases in which the total votes cast were above two million, the margin shift was on average 0.016% of the vote (less than one for every 6,400 votes cast). In the eight cases in which the total votes cast were fewer than one million, the margin shift was on average 0.039% (less than one for every 2,500 votes cast). No recount took place in our three largest states.

Most states should revise their laws governing statewide recounts: Model state laws should establish clear post-election audit procedures and define a reasonable victory margin percentage for automatic, taxpayer-financed recounts.

 


 

Established in 1992, FairVote is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization that educates and enlivens discourse on how best to achieve a democracy that respects every voice and every vote. We pursue innovative research, strategic outreach and civic education in order to promote fair access to political participation, fair elections, and fair representation. For more information, contact Toby Rowe at trowe(at)fairvote.org or (301) 270-4616.