Pennsylvania is now 51-48

[danwxman]

heh. It was 51-49 for a while...

[Keystone Phil]

I have been saying 51-49 for awhile now and don't intend to change 

In all seriousness though, are all the votes in here? Just about 1,500 more votes could make it 51-49 again.

[Keystone Phil]

Nevermind. I just checked the SoS site and Dave's numbers match. 51-48 

[King]

Nevermind. I just checked the SoS site and Dave's numbers match. 51-48 

Bush losing PA by 2.5% is still better than 2000

[Keystone Phil]

Nevermind. I just checked the SoS site and Dave's numbers match. 51-48 

Bush losing PA by 2.5% is still better than 2000

True. He cut the margin of victory for the Dems in half.

[minionofmidas]

You know what bugs me just a teeny little bit...?
As more complete figures became available, Kerry has cut Bush's lead from about 2.9% on election night to about 2.5% now. BUT in absolute numbers, Bush has made 62 Mio, as some have been speculation right since election day, while Kerry is still 5000-odd votes from the 59 Mio mark with only five more state results to become official (Me, NH, RI, Ct, In - what is it about New England election law that makes them slow in coming?)

[Nym90]

In addition, Pennsylvania is not closer than Ohio, in either percentage terms of total margin of votes, as it originally was in preliminary returns, a fact that Republicans liked to brag about at the time, and use to mock those calling for a recount in Ohio ("Pennsylvania is closer, let's recount Pennsylvania!").

[Keystone Phil]

In addition, Pennsylvania is not closer than Ohio, in either percentage terms of total margin of votes, as it originally was in preliminary returns, a fact that Republicans liked to brag about at the time, and use to mock those calling for a recount in Ohio ("Pennsylvania is closer, let's recount Pennsylvania!").

Sure the end result was that Ohio was closer but it wasn't that big of a difference. There could have been a recount here if Kerry wanted to recount Ohio.

[danwxman]

A recount just would have given Kerry a bigger margin.

[Keystone Phil]

A recount just would have given Kerry a bigger margin.

It would still force Kerry to focus on another state. Sure we now know Ohio was closer than PA but that wasn't known on November 3rd. It still could have been done. And if Nym is saying that Republicans can no longer say "Let's recount PA" (something I have suggested several times if Kerry wanted to recount OH) then Republicans can just say "Let's recount Wisconsin - the closest state." Kerry could have won the OH recount but a recount in WI would have meant defeat. He had no choice.

[Nym90]

Yes, I know that Pennsylvania was initially closer. I was just pointing out that's no longer the case.

And yes, Wisconsin and Iowa and New Mexico and New Hampshire are all more worthy of being recounted than Ohio.

[Engineer]

A recount just would have given Kerry a bigger margin.

\

Hmmm.  Why is it that a recount would automatically give Kerry a bigger margin?  Does this tell us something about the people recounting? the intelligence of the voters?  the ability to 'divine' voter intent?

[Nym90]

A recount just would have given Kerry a bigger margin.

\

Hmmm. Why is it that a recount would automatically give Kerry a bigger margin? Does this tell us something about the people recounting? the intelligence of the voters? the ability to 'divine' voter intent?

Well, I don't know if Pennsylvania uses punch card ballots at all, but in states that do use them, they are more likely to be used in heavily Democratic areas, and these ballots are also those most likely to not register a vote as valid. So a recount counts more of these ballots, and thus is likely to produce more Democratic votes as a result.

Generally speaking, poorer areas have more antiquated voting equipment, and these areas are most likely to be heavily Democratic. So a recount ends up counting more ballots that otherwise would have been tossed out, and ballots are more likely to be tossed out in heavily Democratic poor areas that use old fashioned voting technology.

So that's why recounts have a tendency to be more favorable for Democrats.

[minionofmidas]

A recount just would have given Kerry a bigger margin.

\

Hmmm.  Why is it that a recount would automatically give Kerry a bigger margin?  Does this tell us something about the people recounting? the intelligence of the voters?  the ability to 'divine' voter intent?

The education of the voters.

[Democratic Hawk]

At the end of the day, Kerry carried Pennsylvania and Bush carried Ohio. They remain super battleground states

Dave

[Engineer]

A recount just would have given Kerry a bigger margin.

\

Hmmm.  Why is it that a recount would automatically give Kerry a bigger margin?  Does this tell us something about the people recounting? the intelligence of the voters?  the ability to 'divine' voter intent?

The education of the voters.

Then the republicans should gain, since the media and the democrats have been hammering us with how stupid republicans are and how better educated the democrats are.

Let's just say that a recount favors the person in the lead in that precinct, since there are more votes to count for that candidate and error is more likely (it is easier - and with less chance of error, either accidental or intentional - to count 100 votes than it is to count 500).  That is why Rossi gained votes in rural Washington and Gregoire will gain in King County

[minionofmidas]

A recount just would have given Kerry a bigger margin.

\

Hmmm.  Why is it that a recount would automatically give Kerry a bigger margin?  Does this tell us something about the people recounting? the intelligence of the voters?  the ability to 'divine' voter intent?

The education of the voters.

Then the republicans should gain, since the media and the democrats have been hammering us with how stupid republicans are and how better educated the democrats are.

They've been lieing to you. Or maybe they've been adjusting for income - there is a certain correlation between the income-to-formal-education ratio and your political stance.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, obviously...whoever is clearly ahead in one area is likely to gain in a recount there, in absolute numbers at any rate.
But the differential between Dem gains and Rep gains, the reason why Dems tend to gain in recounts in close elections, comes out of a)Lack of voter education b)Out-of-date or faulty voting equipment c)Lack of pollworker education. On the same grounds, it's also reasonable to assume that the final official tally, even after a recount, is still usually a tad Republican friendly.

[Will F.D. People]

Another possible explanation for Democrats picking up votes during recounts is that the Democrat vote is concentrated more in urban counties, and the elections boards in urban counties tend to be hopelessly incompetent to get a decent tally on election night. Possibly this is due to a reverse economy of scale where the complexity of counting the ballots goes up geometrically as the number of ballots increase arithmetically, or maybe it is just that the average cc**nty government employee is more incompetent than the average suburban county government employee.