Under What Circumstances Would You Call for an Electoral Recount?

[Sunstone]

Under what circumstances, if any, would you call for an electoral recount?

Would you call for a recount if you had some evidence, but not conclusive evidence, that a recount might make a difference?

Or would you only call for a recount if you had conclusive evidence that a recount would make a difference?

Would you call for a recount if the race was very close (say, in terms of percentages)? If so, how close would the race need to be for you to call for a recount?

When answering the questions, please keep in mind that -- in the real world (or at least the US world, which might or might not be part of the "real" world) -- there is usually a deadline for calling for a recount. That means there is usually a limited time for gathering information about an election -- and such time might not be adequate to establish an airtight case that a recount would make any difference.

 

[Augustus]

I'd say there should be an agreed upon % figure before the election to depoliticise the issue.

No idea what the % should be, but maybe anything within double the expected count error rate. If such a figure is incalculable then maybe a figure like 1%, but am sure people with more info could work an acceptable figure out.

If the recount deviates from the count by a certain amount then a 3rd count would be implemented.

If it was just a standard programmed decision then it shouldn't be a problem to gain consensus as recounts could benefit both parties.

 

[Sunstone]

I'd say there should be an agreed upon % figure before the election to depoliticise the issue.

I know that in at least some US jurisdictions, a candidate has a right to call for a recount if the percentage difference is below a certain mark, and to expect the recount to be free to them. But if the percentage difference is above that mark, they must pay for the recount themselves.

 

[YmirGF]

I know that in at least some US jurisdictions, a candidate has a right to call for a recount if the percentage difference is below a certain mark, and to expect the recount to be free to them. But if the percentage difference is above that mark, they must pay for the recount themselves.

That certainly sounds reasonable enough. Is this a problem? It's not like candidates these days can't afford to bankroll whatever they please.

 

[Augustus]

I know that in at least some US jurisdictions, a candidate has a right to call for a recount if the percentage difference is below a certain mark, and to expect the recount to be free to them. But if the percentage difference is above that mark, they must pay for the recount themselves.

Making someone call for it is problematic as it smacks of sour grapes. If they want to run again then they might be wary of doing this.

Automatic would be best imo. But the option to call for it if it exceeds the threshold and then have to cover the cost if you are wrong sounds like a good additional option as it stops spurious claims, but also protects the integrity of the election if someone has reason to believe there is something wrong.

A recount though needs to be done pretty much straight way otherwise vote tampering and ballot security becomes more of an issue. If a week or so has passed then any overturned result would attract huge suspicion.

I think they should be able to create an electronic voting system though with some kind of verification

Perhaps the voter role is published online, and when voters register at the polling station this updates in real time (or perhaps in blocks with a 1 hour delay). Voters would also get a voting receipt with an anonymous number which could be checked against an online database of who the vote was actually tallied for. This could go up again with a 1 hour delay to protect anonymity.

I'm sure there is an even better system that could be devised though that removes these problems of manual counts and the potential for electronic vote fraud.

 

[David1967]

Under what circumstances, if any, would you call for an electoral recount?

Would you call for a recount if you had some evidence, but not conclusive evidence, that a recount might make a difference?

Or would you only call for a recount if you had conclusive evidence that a recount would make a difference?

Would you call for a recount if the race was very close (say, in terms of percentages)? If so, how close would the race need to be for you to call for a recount?

When answering the questions, please keep in mind that -- in the real world (or at least the US world, which might or might not be part of the "real" world) -- there is usually a deadline for calling for a recount. That means there is usually a limited time for gathering information about an election -- and such time might not be adequate to establish an airtight case that a recount would make any difference.

If the vote was extremely close as in the 2000 presidential election I think the recount was warranted. To my knowledge some states (don't know how many) have rules set in place that if the votes are a within a certain percentage of each other that there is an automatic recount, so in this case its already taken care of.
If the vote was really close and there was clear evidence of voter fraud, such as for example, dead people voting, or missing ballots, then I would hope there would be a recount. Other than that I cant think of any.

 

[Wu Wei]

If no one was threatening to run off to Canada, and no states were threatening to secede, and both California and Texas were happy with the outcome....something just ain't right..... we better call for a recount

 

[Twilight Hue]

If the vote was extremely close as in the 2000 presidential election I think the recount was warranted. To my knowledge some states (don't know how many) have rules set in place that if the votes are a within a certain percentage of each other that there is an automatic recount, so in this case its already taken care of.
If the vote was really close and there was clear evidence of voter fraud, such as for example, dead people voting, or missing ballots, then I would hope there would be a recount. Other than that I cant think of any.

I agree. The only thing I could think of that warrants something like that is clear evidence of fraud.

 

[Laika]

Under what circumstances, if any, would you call for an electoral recount?

Would you call for a recount if you had some evidence, but not conclusive evidence, that a recount might make a difference?

Or would you only call for a recount if you had conclusive evidence that a recount would make a difference?

Would you call for a recount if the race was very close (say, in terms of percentages)? If so, how close would the race need to be for you to call for a recount?

When answering the questions, please keep in mind that -- in the real world (or at least the US world, which might or might not be part of the "real" world) -- there is usually a deadline for calling for a recount. That means there is usually a limited time for gathering information about an election -- and such time might not be adequate to establish an airtight case that a recount would make any difference.

May be of interest.

http://www.religiousforums.com/threads/campign-for-us-election-recount-underway.192929/

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Recounts are very common in the UK. But they are done before the result is declared.
If the result is close to with in a few hundred, And there is a similar difference between the Total votes cast ( which is counted first) the number voting slips issued, and with the votes counted for all the candidates added together, then any candidate can call for a recount. More often than not these are called by losing candidates who would otherwise loose their deposits. we also have a fair number of second recounts when the first two counts differ in opposite ways or are extremely close.
If two candidates are equal after all this. they toss a coin. This often happens, and did so in the last general election.

After the result is declared, It is rare for the result to be contested. I can only recall one case in recent years.
It happened to my local MP ( a government minister) who was then banned from standing again. However the re- run of the election was won by the same party.

 

[idav]

I'd demand a recount if it seemed like some hacking of the system occurred.