You say, “Recount!” Democrats?

vanity | Nov. 8, 2018 | By Kevin Collins

[jmaroneps37]

The Democrats love recounts. They love them because they think recounts can help them bypass the will of the people.

Whenever a Democrat loses a close election the specter of a recount comes up; but few actually ask for one and almost none succeed in delivering them a victory.

The track record of Democrat recounts we have endured in the recent past is not encouraging for them.

A study by the nonpartisan group called Fair Vote shows just how little return Democrats have realized from recounts.

Here’s what Fair Vote, a non-partisan group found in its study of recounts:

“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…. Just three of those 27 recounts [11%] resulted in a change in the outcome, all leading to wins for Democrats.

“… [of the].. 27 statewide recounts, 15 of which were deemed "consequential" (with an original victory margin no more than 0.15 percent). In other words, there was one recount for every 173 statewide elections and one consequential recount for every 312 statewide elections. This pattern was true of most subcategories of statewide elections as well, including only three consequential recounts out of the 808 elections in this period for the offices of governor, lieutenant governor, secretary of state, attorney general and treasurer.

“Outcome reversals are even rarer: Over the 2000-2015 period, recounts resulted in three reversals out of 15 consequential recounts, or one out of every 1562 statewide elections. 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 margin swing of 282 votes between the frontrunners, representing 0.0191% of the statewide vote in those elections. The median average shift was 219 votes, with 22 of the 27 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 recounts in elections with fewer voters.

“In the seven cases in which the total votes cast were above two million, the margin shift was on average 0.016% of the vote. In the eight cases in which the total votes cast were fewer than one million, the margin shift was on average 0.039%. No recounts took place in our three largest states.

From 2000 to 2015 the largest swing came in Florida’s 2000 presidential election recount when Al Gore picked up 1247 votes from a possible pool of more than 5.940 million votes cast.

The Florida Senate election saw more than 8 million votes cast which was 25% more than the 2000 presidential election votes cast.

Rick Scott has a lead of 30,000 which is more than 24 times what Gore was able to find in his recount.

In the Georgia Gubernatorial race there were 3.882 million votes cast and Republican Brian Kemp got 50.3% of the vote while Democrat Stacy Abrams got 48.7%.

In raw numbers Kemp leads by 63,222 votes.

Democrat Abrams’ goal is to force a recount that would drive Kemp’s vote percentage down to 49.9999999% which, under Georgia law, would trigger a runoff.

In order to get Kemp’s total down to runoff territory a recount would have to trim off 11,648 votes in a pool of 3.882 million votes cast.

To achieve that goal Abrams’ recount would have to find more than 50 times the number of “new” votes that Gore’s recount found.

[Vineyard]

Recounts - HONEST recounts, rarely change the results.

BUT - dishonest recounts, especially where they keep finding more uncounted ballots - usually result in Democrat wins.

WA State - governor’s election....the Democrat (Christine Gregoire) managed to squeak by with a win after losing the election and first 2 recounts. Ballots were found. Some precincts - more votes than registered voters.