did we win the senate or not?
November 8, 2006 4:18 PM
How come they won't call Virginia for the democrats?
How come MSNBC and CNN all the other networks called Montana for the democrats this morning where Tester only has a 2,000 vote advantage, but still won't call Virginia where Webb has around 8,000 more? Is it just a matter of percentages?
How come MSNBC and CNN all the other networks called Montana for the democrats this morning where Tester only has a 2,000 vote advantage, but still won't call Virginia where Webb has around 8,000 more? Is it just a matter of percentages?
I think the answer is: proportions. The difference in number of votes between Allen and Webb is less than 1% of the vote. Therefore, the candidates can demand a recount. In Montana, difference between the candidates in terms of the actual number of votes was less than the difference in Virginia, but the percentage of the vote that difference presented is greater because there are fewer voters in Montana, period.
I think I probably just made the confusion worse. But I hope that explains something.
posted by hazelshade at 4:25 PM on November 8, 2006
I think I probably just made the confusion worse. But I hope that explains something.
posted by hazelshade at 4:25 PM on November 8, 2006
Virginia is a much more populous state than Montana.
In Montana,
Tester (D) got 198,302 votes.
Burns (R) got 195,455 votes.
That's out of 404,081 votes. Although there's a difference of less than 3,000 votes, that 3,000 votes adds up to 7.4 percent of total ballots cast. It's highly unlikely that a recount and the addition of votes yet uncounted will be enough to change the outcome of the race. This would only happen if about 3.7 percent of votes to were counted wrong -- half the gap between the two candidates. And Montana's not likely to have a recount.
In Virginia,
Webb (D) got 1,173,805 votes
Allen (R) got 1,166,489.
That's out of 2,368,889 votes cast and counted. The counting's not done. That's only 94.81 percent of the precints. There's a 7,316 vote difference between the two candidates, or a 3 percent gap. Of total votes cast, about 1.5 percent would have to change to change the outcome of the election. But we don't know the makeup of the 5.2 percent of voters whose ballots haven't been counted. Add those new votes, plus small changes in total likely to come out of a recount, and the election could very well go to Allen. In Virginia, candidates can request a recount whenever the percent of victory is less than 1 percent. Allen's certainly going to do this.
posted by croutonsupafreak at 4:47 PM on November 8, 2006
In Montana,
Tester (D) got 198,302 votes.
Burns (R) got 195,455 votes.
That's out of 404,081 votes. Although there's a difference of less than 3,000 votes, that 3,000 votes adds up to 7.4 percent of total ballots cast. It's highly unlikely that a recount and the addition of votes yet uncounted will be enough to change the outcome of the race. This would only happen if about 3.7 percent of votes to were counted wrong -- half the gap between the two candidates. And Montana's not likely to have a recount.
In Virginia,
Webb (D) got 1,173,805 votes
Allen (R) got 1,166,489.
That's out of 2,368,889 votes cast and counted. The counting's not done. That's only 94.81 percent of the precints. There's a 7,316 vote difference between the two candidates, or a 3 percent gap. Of total votes cast, about 1.5 percent would have to change to change the outcome of the election. But we don't know the makeup of the 5.2 percent of voters whose ballots haven't been counted. Add those new votes, plus small changes in total likely to come out of a recount, and the election could very well go to Allen. In Virginia, candidates can request a recount whenever the percent of victory is less than 1 percent. Allen's certainly going to do this.
posted by croutonsupafreak at 4:47 PM on November 8, 2006
Oops, closer to 2,800 vote difference in Montana, so 7 percent of total ballots cast is the gap and 3.5 percent would have to have be counted wrong for the results to change. My bad.
posted by croutonsupafreak at 4:56 PM on November 8, 2006
posted by croutonsupafreak at 4:56 PM on November 8, 2006
loquax- you are correct. For example, using croutonsupafreak's numbers, it's 0.7% (not 7%) in Montana. This is, however, larger than the threshold for a recount in Montana, which is 0.25% for a state-initiated recount and 0.5% for a candiate-initiated recount.
In Virginia, a recount is possible for <1%, which is the case. Crouton can't divide ;-)
posted by JMOZ at 5:16 PM on November 8, 2006
In Virginia, a recount is possible for <1%, which is the case. Crouton can't divide ;-)
posted by JMOZ at 5:16 PM on November 8, 2006
yes but from what I can remember the networks usually dont have a problem calling a winner even if a recount is inevitable (ie the 2000 election). In any event, the recount will take weeks and under virginia law can't even start until the 27th... my question is, as it stands now isn't Webb the winner? Why don't they identify him as such?
posted by petsounds at 5:25 PM on November 8, 2006
posted by petsounds at 5:25 PM on November 8, 2006
the networks usually dont have a problem calling a winner even if a recount is inevitable (ie the 2000 election)
Well, we all remember how that turned out. So it's just that: a bit more cautious this time around. If it looks like a recount is coming, they hold off. In Montana, there's likely no recount, so ... a call was made.
posted by deadfather at 5:35 PM on November 8, 2006
Well, we all remember how that turned out. So it's just that: a bit more cautious this time around. If it looks like a recount is coming, they hold off. In Montana, there's likely no recount, so ... a call was made.
posted by deadfather at 5:35 PM on November 8, 2006
It doesn't even matter until everyone's sworn in and whatnot which isn't until next year, if I'm not mistaken. So the Republicans still hold congress!!
Until the next session starts
posted by loquax at 5:35 PM on November 8, 2006
Until the next session starts
posted by loquax at 5:35 PM on November 8, 2006
After the last few elections, the networks are a bit more hesitant to project a winner if it's very close.
I think no one wants to be the first to call a race which is almost certainly going to be disputed. Sure, though, Webb appears to be the winner.
posted by JMOZ at 5:35 PM on November 8, 2006
I think no one wants to be the first to call a race which is almost certainly going to be disputed. Sure, though, Webb appears to be the winner.
posted by JMOZ at 5:35 PM on November 8, 2006
OK, that makes sense. I was just hoping I wouldnt have to wait weeks/months before gloating to my republican friends that we won the senate : /
posted by petsounds at 5:49 PM on November 8, 2006
posted by petsounds at 5:49 PM on November 8, 2006
In fact, the Republicans will continue to hold both houses until the 110th Congress meets at noon, January 3rd 2007. Plenty of time to pass all sorts of crazy laws by then!
posted by loquax at 5:54 PM on November 8, 2006
posted by loquax at 5:54 PM on November 8, 2006
Also, now the AP has in fact called the senate for the democrats. (article)
posted by advil at 6:04 PM on November 8, 2006
posted by advil at 6:04 PM on November 8, 2006
I know that the naval base at Norfolk supports a large number of military personnel; I was wondering if that number might be large enough to contribute a large number of absentee ballots. Anyone know?
posted by ikkyu2 at 7:02 PM on November 8, 2006
posted by ikkyu2 at 7:02 PM on November 8, 2006
I don't know. I haven't been able to find a really reliable source as to whether the current totals already include military absentee ballots or not.
But I really wanted to note that probably relatively few people stationed in the Tidewater area vote there in any case. Many people in the military maintain their domicile in their hometowns and vote there by absentee ballot. Many others end up stationed in TX, FL, or another state with no income tax, and establish their domicile there, where they will also vote.
At least, this seemed to be the case in the 80s through at least the early 90s. I assume the laws are still similar.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 7:21 PM on November 8, 2006
But I really wanted to note that probably relatively few people stationed in the Tidewater area vote there in any case. Many people in the military maintain their domicile in their hometowns and vote there by absentee ballot. Many others end up stationed in TX, FL, or another state with no income tax, and establish their domicile there, where they will also vote.
At least, this seemed to be the case in the 80s through at least the early 90s. I assume the laws are still similar.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 7:21 PM on November 8, 2006
ROU_Xenophobe writes "I haven't been able to find a really reliable source as to whether the current totals already include military absentee ballots or not."
Virginia BOE totals already include absentee ballots, but not provisional ballots. According to Dem exit polling, Webb got about 42% of the active duty military vote.
posted by orthogonality at 2:59 AM on November 9, 2006
Virginia BOE totals already include absentee ballots, but not provisional ballots. According to Dem exit polling, Webb got about 42% of the active duty military vote.
posted by orthogonality at 2:59 AM on November 9, 2006
This thread is closed to new comments.
But that might not be true (I've got no sources other than my dad, who's a PA resident) - and if it's not, then I'm confused, too! NPR did a spot about the three missing precincts (the reason they've only got 99% reporting currently), and they total under 1,000 votes. So.
posted by AthenaPolias at 4:21 PM on November 8, 2006