Why Recounting the 2024 U.S. Election Votes Will Barely Change the Results

Recounts, while crucial for ensuring the accuracy of results, are not likely to change who ends up winning 

19th October 2024. Washington, D.C. 

Digital Worldwide News

As the American electorate gears up for the upcoming November elections, one fact remains clear: while close races may trigger recounts, they seldom alter the outcome. History shows that recounts, while crucial for ensuring the accuracy of results, are not likely to change who ends up winning, even in the most closely contested races.

Experts point out that the recount process, while essential to maintaining election integrity, is unlikely to shift results dramatically. In fact, according to election officials, the original count is often accurate due to the reliability of modern voting machines.

“The machines work very well,” says Tammy Patrick, a former election official in Arizona now affiliated with the National Association of Election Officials. “We have recounts and audits to make sure we got it right, but generally, the margin of error is very small.”

Recounts Have Rarely Changed Outcomes

Since the landmark 2000 U.S. presidential recount between George W. Bush and Al Gore, there have been 36 statewide recounts in general elections. Out of those, only three resulted in a different winner. All three were extremely tight, with margins decided by mere hundreds of votes.

The most prominent recount in recent memory is the 2000 presidential election, where a recount in Florida was stopped by the U.S. Supreme Court, allowing George W. Bush to maintain his lead over Al Gore. It’s a recount that has stayed etched in the public's mind, but it’s also an exception to the rule.

Most recounts, since that time, have only adjusted vote margins by minuscule percentages. In fact, according to an analysis by the Associated Press, using data from state election offices and FairVote, a nonpartisan organization, the average change in the winning margin for recounts was just 0.03 percentage points.

A Tiny Margin, A Huge Impact

One of the most significant recounts was the 2008 Minnesota Senate race. In the initial count, Republican Norm Coleman led Democrat Al Franken by 215 votes out of 2.9 million ballots cast. After a hand recount, Franken emerged victorious by just 225 votes, a shift of 0.02 percentage points.

Such narrow margins are rare, but they showcase how small shifts in vote counts can make a difference when the race is tight enough. However, recounts rarely produce such drastic results. For example, in a Vermont race for state auditor in 2006, a recount flipped the race, but the margin change was just 0.11 percentage points.

This highlights an essential aspect of recounts: they are far more likely to alter the outcome of smaller races than large, high-turnout elections. The data overwhelmingly show that in races with margins decided by thousands of votes, recounts simply won’t flip the result.

Recounts Happen in Primaries Too

It’s not just general elections where recounts take place. Primaries, often more hotly contested, also trigger recounts. A case in point was earlier this year when a Washington state primary for the commissioner of public lands went to a recount. Democrat Dave Upthegrove led Republican Sue Kuehl Pederson by 51 votes in the initial tally.

After the recount, Upthegrove’s lead shrank by just two votes, demonstrating once again how recounts tend to fine-tune, rather than dramatically change, the final outcome. The primary system in Washington allows the top two vote-getters, regardless of party, to move on to the general election. Upthegrove advanced, but the recount only slightly adjusted the margin.

Different States, Different Rules

The rules governing recounts vary significantly from state to state, creating a patchwork of election laws across the U.S. Some states have automatic recounts if the margin is below a certain threshold, while others require candidates to request a recount and cover the costs themselves unless the result flips in their favor.

For example, Alaska, Montana, South Dakota, and Texas mandate recounts only in the event of an exact tie. In contrast, states like South Carolina automatically trigger a recount if the margin between the top two candidates is less than 1% of the total votes cast.

The Associated Press (AP) plays a role in declaring winners in races where a recount is possible but the margin is too large for it to realistically change the outcome. In such cases, the AP might declare a winner even before a recount happens, confident that the result will stand.

The Mechanisms of Recounting

Recounts typically involve re-tabulating paper ballots, and human error can be a factor in the changes to vote totals. Election workers may have incorrectly processed some ballots, which are then rechecked during the recount.

“Most of the time, it’s human error—either by election workers or by voters themselves,” explains Patrick. She notes that paper ballots are frequently rejected by machines because voters fail to mark them correctly. In some cases, these ballots are added back into the count after a review process.

One of the most common errors involves voters filling in the wrong area of the ballot or using incorrect markings. For instance, in Minnesota’s recount, a voter filled in the circle for Al Franken but also added “Lizard People” as a write-in candidate. Naturally, that ballot was rejected.

The Role of Bipartisan Panels in Recounts

In many states, bipartisan panels oversee the recount process to ensure fairness and transparency. These panels review ballots that were previously rejected, often interpreting voter intent. For example, if a voter circles the name of a candidate instead of filling in the bubble, the panel may determine that the voter’s intent was clear and add that ballot to the count.

However, not all states take the same approach. In some, rejected ballots are simply not reviewed, while in others, the recount triggers a review of all rejected ballots, regardless of how small the margin might be.

This process helps mitigate human error, but even in close races, the number of votes added to the count from these reviews is often too small to alter the final outcome.

The Importance of Recounts in Safeguarding Democracy

While recounts rarely change the winner of an election, they play a vital role in maintaining public trust in the electoral process. Recounts and audits ensure that any mistakes are caught and corrected, helping to reinforce the legitimacy of the outcome.

As the U.S. gears up for another heated election cycle, recounts are almost certain to take place in some close races. But based on the historical data, it’s clear that voters and candidates alike shouldn’t count on recounts to flip the results. As FairVote’s Deb Otis puts it, “We’re going to see recounts in 2024 that are not going to change the outcome.”

In a divided political climate, recounts provide a crucial check on the system, ensuring that every vote is counted accurately. But if history is any guide, recounts are far more likely to confirm the initial results rather than overturn them, even in some of the closest races.