MN Sen Recount (UPDATE: Stuart Smalley certified winner, lawsuit forthcoming)

[Хahar 🤔]

This is excellent news. I had all but reconciled myself to loss.

It was inevitable and you know it.

Oh no, I really thought he'd steal this one. Fortunately, we stole it instead.

[muon2]

This is excellent news. I had all but reconciled myself to loss.

It was inevitable and you know it.

Oh no, I really thought he'd steal this one. Fortunately, we stole it instead.

This is one reason to like a runoff system for major races. The revote will usually remove any idea that one side or the other "stole" the election. It also gives the 3rd party voters a chance to decide what (if anything) they want to do with their vote.

[Eraserhead]

This is excellent news. I had all but reconciled myself to loss.

It was inevitable and you know it.

Oh no, I really thought he'd steal this one. Fortunately, we stole it instead.

This is one reason to like a runoff system for major races. The revote will usually remove any idea that one side or the other "stole" the election. It also gives the 3rd party voters a chance to decide what (if anything) they want to do with their vote.

That certainly would have made the most sense in this situation.

[Stranger in a strange land]

This is excellent news. I had all but reconciled myself to loss.

It was inevitable and you know it.

That certainly would have made the most sense in a situation like this.

Oh no, I really thought he'd steal this one. Fortunately, we stole it instead.

This is one reason to like a runoff system for major races. The revote will usually remove any idea that one side or the other "stole" the election. It also gives the 3rd party voters a chance to decide what (if anything) they want to do with their vote.

I think this whole recount debacle makes a pretty strong case for instant runoff voting.

[emailking]

This is an entirely separate matter from the voting system used. In a run-off, the result could end up this close. With IRV, it could be this close on the final iteration. Such a situation wouldn't be any less likely either than with first-place plurality voting. The point in using IRV on a run-off system is to better gauge the true preferences of the voters, not to avoid close elections.

[they don't love you like i love you]

County governments are non-partisan,

Nobody is really non-partisan.

No but it does mean that there's not so much of a correlation of those elected and the county's general lean. Both Hennepin and Ramsey county have Republican sheriffs for example elected on a non-partisan ballot (though Ramsey's barely won and is likely toast in 2010 after his RNC crap.)

BTW, I wonder if this'll change the Republicans staunch anti-IRV stance, as exit polls showed Coleman would've won a two-way race.

Franken now the favorite on InTrade btw.

[© tweed]

Franken now the favorite on InTrade btw.

"a challenge fit for a man when I'm just a kid."  -Bayside

[Eraserhead]

I guess this will probably go down as the most entertaining race of the year (non-Presidential at least).

[Ronnie]

Well, at least Coleman is closing on Intrade.  Probably noise, though.

[ag]

This is excellent news. I had all but reconciled myself to loss.

It was inevitable and you know it.

Oh no, I really thought he'd steal this one. Fortunately, we stole it instead.

This is one reason to like a runoff system for major races. The revote will usually remove any idea that one side or the other "stole" the election. It also gives the 3rd party voters a chance to decide what (if anything) they want to do with their vote.

It actually creates an extra opportunity for a screw up. First, when the third candidate comes within .01% of the second and they battle it out, who should have gone into the run-off (not that unrealistic in MN, come think of it). And second, when the final result is 50.01% vs. 49.99%

[Stranger in a strange land]

County governments are non-partisan,

Nobody is really non-partisan.

No but it does mean that there's not so much of a correlation of those elected and the county's general lean. Both Hennepin and Ramsey county have Republican sheriffs for example elected on a non-partisan ballot (though Ramsey's barely won and is likely toast in 2010 after his RNC crap.)

BTW, I wonder if this'll change the Republicans staunch anti-IRV stance, as exit polls showed Coleman would've won a two-way race.

really? Coleman only ran 2 points behind McCain but Franken ran about 12 behind Obama.

[muon2]

This is excellent news. I had all but reconciled myself to loss.

It was inevitable and you know it.

Oh no, I really thought he'd steal this one. Fortunately, we stole it instead.

This is one reason to like a runoff system for major races. The revote will usually remove any idea that one side or the other "stole" the election. It also gives the 3rd party voters a chance to decide what (if anything) they want to do with their vote.

It actually creates an extra opportunity for a screw up. First, when the third candidate comes within .01% of the second and they battle it out, who should have gone into the run-off (not that unrealistic in MN, come think of it). And second, when the final result is 50.01% vs. 49.99%

The possibility for a separate runoff producing an equally close result exists, but it is not probable. As the recount shows, two experts looking at the same pile of ballots with the same standards can vary by a few votes per 10,000 cast. That establishes a margin of error for any voting system, albeit a small margin of error.

A separate runoff creates a different pool of voters. The differences in the pool increase with the size of the electoral constituency. That makes it very unlikely that the new pool of voters would be within the same margin of error when they vote. Thus it is improbable to have a runoff require a recount.

[emailking]

The possibility for a separate runoff producing an equally close result exists, but it is not probable.

That's not the issue. You're looking at it the wrong way. It doesn't have to be close to begin with. Let's say we use a runoff system. Here's the initial count.

Candidate A: 45%
Candidate B: 30%
Candidate C: 25%

Here, A and B go into a runoff. It turns out that candidate C voters split such that the final result is:

Candidate B: 50.001%
Candidate A: 49.999%

Now we're locked in endless recounts as Candidate A fights to win and everyone is saying how nice it would be if we had just used a plurality system as then the result would have been clear in this case.

[they don't love you like i love you]

County governments are non-partisan,

Nobody is really non-partisan.

No but it does mean that there's not so much of a correlation of those elected and the county's general lean. Both Hennepin and Ramsey county have Republican sheriffs for example elected on a non-partisan ballot (though Ramsey's barely won and is likely toast in 2010 after his RNC crap.)

BTW, I wonder if this'll change the Republicans staunch anti-IRV stance, as exit polls showed Coleman would've won a two-way race.

really? Coleman only ran 2 points behind McCain but Franken ran about 12 behind Obama.

The exit poll says without Barkley Coleman would've gotten 46%, Franken 43% and the rest just wouldn't have voted.

[muon2]

The possibility for a separate runoff producing an equally close result exists, but it is not probable.

That's not the issue. You're looking at it the wrong way. It doesn't have to be close to begin with. Let's say we use a runoff system. Here's the initial count.

Candidate A: 45%
Candidate B: 30%
Candidate C: 25%

Here, A and B go into a runoff. It turns out that candidate C voters split such that the final result is:

Candidate B: 50.001%
Candidate A: 49.999%

Now we're locked in endless recounts as Candidate A fights to win and everyone is saying how nice it would be if we had just used a plurality system as then the result would have been clear in this case.

I think it is the issue. Consider these two setups with three candidates that give a recount:

Setup 1: A 42.01%, B 41.99%, C 16.00%. No runoff, A or B is eventually declared winner.

Setup 2: A 45%, B 30%, C 25%. Runoff with B 50.01%, A 49.99%. B is declared the winner.

I think that Setup 2 provides the stronger claim for legitimacy. Both will be contested, but at the end of the process only Setup 2 gives one candidate over 50%.

[emailking]

I'll agree with you that run-off is better than no run-off but close results are just as likely. That's the point I'm trying to make. The voting method should be a separate consideration from how to deal with close elections. Because we will have these rare, close elections under any system.

[muon2]

I'll agree with you that run-off is better than no run-off but close results are just as likely. That's the point I'm trying to make. The voting method should be a separate consideration from how to deal with close elections. Because we will have these rare, close elections under any system.

What's less likely is two consecutive close races. The assuming equal probabilities at each stage, the combined probability decreases as the square of the probability.

[emailking]

I'll agree with you that run-off is better than no run-off but close results are just as likely. That's the point I'm trying to make. The voting method should be a separate consideration from how to deal with close elections. Because we will have these rare, close elections under any system.

What's less likely is two consecutive close races. The assuming equal probabilities at each stage, the combined probability decreases as the square of the probability.

In a plurality system you can't have two consecutive races, so technically it's greater (since it's greater than 0) in a run-off system.

I think you're still looking at this wrong. Yes, if your initial results are:

A: 40.01%
B: 39.99%
C: 20%

Then yes, it is unlikely the run-off will be close. But here's the crux. The chances, on average, of having elections close in the initial tally are balanced, on average, by the chances of having run-offs where the result is close, even though the initial tally wasn't.

[they don't love you like i love you]

The thing is that the close race in the first round doesn't really matter (though granted it would if it was between the second and third place candidates.)

[emailking]

Exactly. In a run-off the first result is replaced whole-cloth. So in the end, with either plurality or run-off, we have the same number of elections that can be close.

[muon2]

I'll agree with you that run-off is better than no run-off but close results are just as likely. That's the point I'm trying to make. The voting method should be a separate consideration from how to deal with close elections. Because we will have these rare, close elections under any system.

What's less likely is two consecutive close races. The assuming equal probabilities at each stage, the combined probability decreases as the square of the probability.

In a plurality system you can't have two consecutive races, so technically it's greater (since it's greater than 0) in a run-off system.

I think you're still looking at this wrong. Yes, if your initial results are:

A: 40.01%
B: 39.99%
C: 20%

Then yes, it is unlikely the run-off will be close. But here's the crux. The chances, on average, of having elections close in the initial tally are balanced, on average, by the chances of having run-offs where the result is close, even though the initial tally wasn't.

I disagree. You assume that all races are equally likely to be close. I assume that races with more than two candidates have a greater likelihood of being close due to the reduced pool of voters for the top two candidates.  With fewer votes the statistical fluctuations that can lead to a close vote have a greater impact. This leads me to fewer close races after a runoff than in a plurality system.

A hybrid of plurality and runoff is also possible. I could strengthen my suggestion for run-off by only invoking it if a candidate has less than 50% of the vote and the margin of victory is less than 5% (or some other small but significant margin.)

[emailking]

I disagree. You assume that all races are equally likely to be close. I assume that races with more than two candidates have a greater likelihood of being close due to the reduced pool of voters for the top two candidates.  With fewer votes the statistical fluctuations that can lead to a close vote have a greater impact. This leads me to fewer close races after a runoff than in a plurality system.

Alright I'll give you that. It's a significant but not a huge difference. Suppose a 3rd party candidate takes 1/4 of the vote.  Then it's something like sqrt(3)/2 times less likely.

(edit, changed 1/3 to 1/4 so it's still a two-way race.)

[jimrtex]

The possibility for a separate runoff producing an equally close result exists, but it is not probable.

That's not the issue. You're looking at it the wrong way. It doesn't have to be close to begin with. Let's say we use a runoff system. Here's the initial count.

Candidate A: 45%
Candidate B: 30%
Candidate C: 25%

Here, A and B go into a runoff. It turns out that candidate C voters split such that the final result is:

Candidate B: 50.001%
Candidate A: 49.999%

Now we're locked in endless recounts as Candidate A fights to win and everyone is saying how nice it would be if we had just used a plurality system as then the result would have been clear in this case.

More likely the Candidate C voters don't show up for the runoff.

[Ronnie]

Coleman is back to the favorite on intrade...by 0.4%

[ag]

I'll agree with you that run-off is better than no run-off but close results are just as likely. That's the point I'm trying to make. The voting method should be a separate consideration from how to deal with close elections. Because we will have these rare, close elections under any system.

What's less likely is two consecutive close races. The assuming equal probabilities at each stage, the combined probability decreases as the square of the probability.

In a plurality system you can't have two consecutive races, so technically it's greater (since it's greater than 0) in a run-off system.

I think you're still looking at this wrong. Yes, if your initial results are:

A: 40.01%
B: 39.99%
C: 20%

Then yes, it is unlikely the run-off will be close. But here's the crux. The chances, on average, of having elections close in the initial tally are balanced, on average, by the chances of having run-offs where the result is close, even though the initial tally wasn't.

I disagree. You assume that all races are equally likely to be close. I assume that races with more than two candidates have a greater likelihood of being close due to the reduced pool of voters for the top two candidates.  With fewer votes the statistical fluctuations that can lead to a close vote have a greater impact. This leads me to fewer close races after a runoff than in a plurality system.

You are forgetting, that run-off would lead to a substantial increase in the number of races w/ more than 2 candidates. In fact, methinks, if the run-off were the norm, the three- or four- semi-serious candidate races would become the norm as well.