The 2000 Florida recount, which has generated renewed interest in light of the HBO dramatization to debut tonight, seemed at the time like a once-in-a-lifetime fluke of probability, the electoral equivalent of being struck by lightning. But then just four years later, had John Kerry pulled a few thousand votes closer to George W. Bush, we might well have had an automatic recount in Ohio and a replay of the whole scenario, with Ken Blackwell playing the role of Katherine Harris.
So just how (un)likely are these recount things anyway? To evaluate the problem, I looked for all occurrences in my simulation when the following happened: there was some state, or some combination of states, that the candidate who lost the electoral college had lost by no more than 0.5 points. But if the candidate had won some or all of these states, he would have won the elecotral college.
For example, in simulation run #132 of 10,000, Barack Obama initially picked up 250 electoral votes. But that doesn't count Pennsylvania, which he lost by just 0.04 points. That's a very obvious recount scenario.
Or, in simulation run #336, Barack Obama won the election with 290 electoral votes -- but had carried Indiana and Missouri by just 0.4 points and 0.5 points, respectively, close enough to trigger recounts. If McCain had won both recounts, he would have gained 22 electoral votes, enough to give him a 270-268 electoral win.
Overall, the recount scenario was triggered 703 times out of 10,000 simulations -- slightly more than 7 percent of the time.
By one definition, that does qualify as a "once-in-a-lifetime" occurrence: 7 percent means once out of about every 14 elections, and the average American adult will have the opportunity to vote in roughly 14 presidential elections before they die. But that's still quite a bit more likely than I would have thought.
Sunday, May 25, 2008
The odds of a recount
-- Nate Silver at 12:54 PM
Labels: history, scenario testing
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments
Well, you also have to consider that not every election is as closely contested as the last couple were, and as this one seems likely to be. If you factor in mismatches like Reagan-Mondale or even Clinton-Dole every so often (or more) the relative frequency of recount scenarios is bound to go down significantly.
I think that your model may underestimate the odds of a recount. I say this primarily because there are two factors in modern elections that both seem to encourage close election: modern voter targeting, and the mass media. First, the ratings driven media tends to encourage close races. This doesn't even have to be by design, increased "interest" in the frontrunner means increased ratings for covering him/her, increased coverage means increased likelihood of covering a gaffe, scandal, or other negative event, which encourages the race to tighten. Second, modern voter targeting also encourages tight races. The reason for this is because of the "median voter theory" you support. Quite simply, these tools allow the party to strike that median voter theory balance much more accurately in the days before polling, focus groups, and micro-targeting.
Naturally, there are more factors than those in a race, so it won't always be close, but it's more likely now than in the past and I can't think of anything on the horizon that I would be comfortable in predicting changing that.
How frequently were the simulated contests close enough in the popular vote to trigger a likely recount, were that the way we elected the President? This is actually a more than "academic" question, as one of the (specious, I think) arguments made against a national popular vote is the "danger" of a national recount. Your simulations would seem to shed light on this debate.
(I, too was surprised that these electoral college recount scenarios would happen as often as the simulations suggest, I would just add that it is even more than "once in a lifetime" given that 1 in 14 means one might remember one from one's pre-eligibility years as well as have a plausible chance of seeing another during one's voting lifetime.)
In my lifetime there have been 2 recount possible
elections(1960, 2000) and 2 that could have been in that state of affairs (1968, 2004). That makes the recount scenario more frequent than 1 in 14. It could be more like climate and that certain typologies recur more often and then less often.
I'll never forget staying all night on election night 2000 - I remember I was still watching the news 9 AM before I finally turned it off... That was incredible.
I don't think my blood pressure could withstand such a scenario this year.
This diary says there will be a poll from a Puerto Rican newspaper out on Thursday.
Oh Poblano, not you too! I know I'm nitpicking, but 7% does not mean once out of about every 14 elections. In fact, it means that in 1 election there is a 93% chance that it won't happen and in 14 elections, there is still a 36% chance that it will NOT happen and therefore only a 64% chance that it will happen in one's lifetime (assuming it's 14 elections).
Post a Comment