Election Count Conspiracy Theorists Get the Math Wrong

Yogi Berra supposedly said, “It ain’t over till it’s over.” The only official election count is the final, verified count of every single vote. Everything else is just a projection – an estimate, a sample.

When elections results or projections don’t match the final count, well, people start spreading silly conspiracy theories. Sports help us understand that.


A Sports Analogy

So, for the moment, let us think about elections like a sport. Suppose the New Paris Porcupines meet the Old Heathen Hedgehogs on the gridiron. With one minute to go in the fourth quarter, the Porcupines lead by 21 to 8. The Porcupines have 72% of the points, and the lowly Hedgehogs only have 28%. The Porcupines are running away with the game! The Hedgehogs don’t have a chance!

Then, disaster strikes! The Porcupines fumble the Hedgehogs’ onside kick. The Hedgehogs’ worst player scoops up the ball and runs for a touchdown! Add an extra point! The score is 21 to 15! Horrors! The Porcupines’ devoted fans cover their faces in terror!

High School Touchdown

Ready for another onside kick, the Porcupines crowd up to the kicker, only to watch the ball sail over their heads to the 10-yard line. A Hedgehog scoops up the bouncing ball and, before you know it, the whistle blows, and the Hedgehogs win, 22 to 21.

Sports fans call that a come-from-behind triumph. But what if the Porcupines’ fans are politicians? That changes everything:

“We were winning with 72%, and then lost in only one minute! That proves bad scorekeeping! The Hedgehogs cheated! Throw the spiny fuzzballs in jail! Forfeit their season! Lock up the refs! It is impossible to lose when you lead by that much in the last minute! Statistics don’t lie! The refs should have stopped the game. It was all but over until the Hedgehogs cheated! Cheaters!”

Obviously, say the politicians, this must be football fraud. The numbers prove it!

That is nonsense. Sports fans know that teams can have a different score in every quarter. Newsreel touchdowns happen. Something similar is true in elections.

In fact, this is a perfectly fair comparison. Let us look at why.


Estimating the Final Vote

Typical Election Cheating Post

Let’s suppose we are counting votes in Political City, USA. Political City has two precincts. Precinct #1 is a rich suburb, packed with Republicans and their SUVs. Precinct #2, however, is on the poor side of the tracks. Most of the voters are Democrats, many of whom hobble around in poor health and prefer to vote by mail. Political City has about 40,000 voters, but budget cutbacks left them with too few poll workers. Counting all the ballots will drag on and on. And on and on and …

All the same, everyone is excited to know whether Pat Psychopath or Chris Sociopath will win the mayor’s race. Long before the complete vote is tabulated, the local news wants to get a quick sample to find out who won. We can’t wait for days to hear the final count. I mean, seriously, think of the suspense! Nerve-racking!

That’s where statistics might help us. Statisticians take samples to estimate the final count. Does that work? Maybe, maybe not. It mostly depends on how you collect the sample.

Sampling Method #1: We collect all the ballots. But we don’t count them yet. Instead, we dump all the ballots into a huge, dry tub. We blindfold three honest poll workers, and they stir all the ballots with broomsticks for 30 minutes. The ballots are now completely mixed up. The rich Republicans, the poor Democrats, and voters who don’t fit into any category are all randomly mixed.

Now, still blindfolded, the three honest poll workers yank a thousand ballots out of the tub and those ballots are counted first. Do those thousand ballots predict whether Pat or Chris is going to be the next mayor? Well, with a certain margin for error, they probably do. It is remotely possible, of course, that by sheer bad luck the thousand ballots could be almost all Republicans. In that case, the thousand ballots would show that the Republican will win, even though the final count might say the Democrat wins. Still, most of the time – not all the time – but most of the time – a thousand ballots picked at random will closely but not exactly predict the final result. That’s because the thousand ballots were chosen fairly and randomly, and every voter had an equal chance to be included.

Anyway, let’s imagine that Sampling Method #1 correctly estimates that Democrat Chris Sociopath will be the next mayor.

Sampling Method #2: Most of Political City’s Republicans voted in person using electronic machines (which also create a paper ballot trail), and their votes are easy to count. The Democrats, however, mostly voted by mail. They are harder to count. Their ballots need to be opened, and the signatures must be verified. Then the ballots must feed into a scanner, and then the scanner’s information shuffles off into the main computer. There’s nothing wrong with that rigmarole, but it takes time. Now, since everyone is eager to know, the news reports the count two hours after the polls close. That count includes 20,000 votes! Half of the voters! A much bigger sample than we got with Method #1! A huge sample! The count for Method #2 mostly includes Republicans, since they were easier to count, and, when we look at the numbers, we think that Pat Psychopath will the election by a huge, huge margin. Maybe 72% to 28%! So, we all think that Pat will become mayor and ruin Political City.

However, once all the Democrats are counted days later, it turns out that Chris Sociopath won the election by 10 votes. We count and double check, since the election is so close, but it comes out the same every time. Chris won. Congratulations to Chris, and it will be Chris, and not Pat, who gets to make a mess of everything and ruin the town.

The difference between Sampling Method #1 and Sampling Method #2 is not the number of ballots in the sample. That matters, but less than you would think. No, the difference is how the sample was created. With Method #1, the sample is fair and every Republican and every Democrat, not to mention every independent and every confused voter, has an equal chance to be in the sample. However, with Method #2, although the sample is huge, it is not fair. Few mail-in ballots are included. Fewer Democrats have a chance to be included. Therefore, the sample from Method #2 is inaccurate, because Republicans are a bigger part of the sample from Method #2 than they are of the voting population.

So, if we project the election from Method #1, we will probably (not always, but probably) come close to the final result. If, however, we rely on Method #2, where the sample is unfair, the sample might not resemble the final tally.

Worse, all sampling introduces some error, probably 4% or 5% even using the best methods. The closer the election becomes, the more important sample errors become – since the sample will never exactly match the proportion of the entire population – and so it takes longer to produce a valid estimate. If the election is close, we might never have a valid estimate. That’s just how statistics work. The projections and the early reports are never the final total. That is why even the smartest news networks cannot calculate or even estimate accurate election results when the election is super-close.

“It ain’t over till it’s over.”

Remember – and this is critical – the only count – and I mean the only count – that means anything is the final tally that has been tabbed up, verified, double checked, and reported to the authorities. Everything you hear, either from the media or the voting officials, before we have a 100% verified count, is an estimate – an educated guess. That educated guess comes either from Sampling Method #1, which is often but not always right, or Sampling Method #2, which is typically wrong. An incomplete vote count is only a sample—and, worse, an incomplete count uses Sample Method #2. A count of 98% of the votes is still just Sampling Method #2. If the educated guess takes a long time, or if it is occasionally inaccurate, well, that doesn’t prove that anyone cheated. It only proves that samples do not always work, and that unfair samples often fail.


Down with the Conspiracy Theories

So, when Gripey Garrett gripes on social media, “My candidate was winning with 90% of the vote counted, but now she is losing,” all that means is that Gripey Garrett was using Sampling Method #2, and you should never trust Sampling Method #2.

Now, in the real 2024 election, Democrats tend to live in cities, and cities can take longer to count because they have more voters. How long does it take to count all the votes in a village of 500 people? How long does it take to count the votes of a million people? Also, Democrats often mail their ballots or drop them off in collection boxes. Those ballots need to be opened, verified, and fed into scanners. That is why it is not unusual for Democrats to need longer to count. When we see an early surge in Republican counts, followed by a surge in Democrats, well, that’s often just the process of counting. The early voting reports use Sampling Method #2. And you can never trust Sampling Method #2. Basic math.

So, if you want to prove that someone stole an election, you need to find evidence of the actual stealing. The fact that voting percentages change as the ballots are counted only means that you are using Sampling Method #2.

Earlier Post: Don't Expect Same Day Election Results

  
Earlier Post: Were the Polls Wrong in 2020? And, if so, Why?

And, finally, congratulations to the Hedgehogs for their great victory! Hail to the Hedgehogs, good work. They played play hard to the end! The first, second, third quarters were not the whole game. The score after three quarters is just Sample #2. The fourth quarter still matters. The last 60 seconds still matter. We aren’t shocked when a team comes from behind to win. Likewise, we should expect voting percentages to change while the counters count. That’s just math.

Every eligible American citizen should vote in every single election. Never miss. Never forget. And always inform yourself before you vote. Never trust Sampling Method #2. Thank you, and God Bless the United States of America.
 

by William D. Harpine

______________________________

P.S. How do athletic teams sometimes overcome late scoring deficits? Other than pure luck, the winning team might have more endurance. Maybe the losing team gets cocky and celebrates too soon. Each quarter is different—the score from quarters 1 through 3 is just Sampling Method #2! A come from behind victory isn’t cheating. It’s just sports. Only the final score counts. 

Lever-Style Voting Machine

P.P.S. Is it possible to cheat in an election? Of course. American elections were often (not always, but often) crooked as recently as my youth. Unsupervised partisan operatives sometimes managed the ballots. That was common practice here in Texas for decades. Elections in many states used paper ballots, and political operatives could erase the ballots, throw them away, or add more ballots if the results didn’t come out the way they wanted. Seriously. Have you never heard of the old (now defunct) Chicago political machine? 

Likewise, mechanical voting machines, widely used for decades, were robotic fraud machines. I watched my vote get mixed up by a mechanical machine in 1980 in Virginia when I tried to vote for Independent John Anderson, and the officials just shoved me out the door. I should have protested, but, in Virginia, in 1980, who would have listened? Modern voting methods are, in contrast, stunningly secure. Is it still possible to cheat? Probably. But you need evidence before you call someone a cheater. Okay? 

P.P.P.S. It's not easy to understand statistics. The math isn't necessarily hard, but the human brain is simply not wired to grasp probabilities. We think in terms of "yes" or "no," not "maybe." All the same, every school should require at least a brief stats course. It could save our nation so much grief...

I Voted Sticker, State of Texas, Nueces County

Touchdown photo, public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Image of lever-style voting machine by RadioFan, Creative Commons License, via Wikimedia Commons

Copyright © 2024 by William D. Harpine

Lincoln versus Trump: Thanksgiving Messages by Two Republican Presidents

I hope that all of my dear readers in the United States enjoyed a wonderful Thanksgiving holiday on November 28. Did you take time at the Thanksgiving table to give a message saying what you are thankful for?

Let’s look at Thanksgiving messages by the first Republican president, Abraham Lincoln, and the upcoming Republican president, Donald Trump. Lincoln, writing in the midst of the American Civil War, issued a proclamation of thanks, unity, and forgiveness. Trump, in contrast, offered thanks that his political enemies met their downfall in the November 2024 election. A positive message, a hostile message, but both giving thanks. As we compare those two messages, we can reflect, we can learn about our own souls. Do we give thanks for ongoing good, or for crushing our enemies? Do we seek reconciliation, or triumph? And which of the two men was right? Although Lincoln’s Thanksgiving proclamation uplifted me, while Trump’s odious thoughts left me sickened, I hesitate to say that one of them was factually right and the other wrong. Let’s look at why.

Abraham Lincoln’s 1863 Thanksgiving Proclamation

Abraham Lincoln issued a Thanksgiving proclamation on October 3, 1863. Americans, both north and south, littered the American Civil War’s battlefields. Lincoln would be giving his famous Gettysburg address only a few weeks later. The American Civil War took almost as many American lives as the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, the Spanish-American War, World War I, World War II, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War added together. Lincoln offered his proclamation while unspeakable horror wracked the nation. In the midst of that disaster, Lincoln opened his proclamation by giving thanks for the harvest and the heavens. How positive can you get? 

“The year that is drawing toward its close has been filled with the blessings of fruitful fields and healthful skies. To these bounties, which are so constantly enjoyed that we are prone to forget the source from which they come, others have been added, which are of so extraordinary a nature that they cannot fail to penetrate and even soften the heart which is habitually insensible to the ever-watchful providence of Almighty God.”

It should surprise no student of history that Lincoln attributed these good things, not to his own leadership, but exclusively to God.

Although he acknowledged the war, Lincoln continued to praise the progress of agriculture and industry:

“Needful diversions of wealth and of strength from the fields of peaceful industry to the national defense have not arrested the plow, the shuttle, or the ship; the ax has enlarged the borders of our settlements, and the mines, as well of iron and coal as of the precious metals, have yielded even more abundantly than heretofore.”

Again, Lincoln denied that he, himself, had anything to do with the abundance. No, he attributed all the good things to God alone.

Indeed, even as Lincoln said that God punished the United States of America for the wickedness of slavery, God rewarded the nation out of his own goodness:

“No human counsel hath devised, nor hath any mortal hand worked out these great things. They are the gracious gifts of the Most High God, who while dealing with us in anger for our sins, hath nevertheless remembered mercy.”

Not directly attributing the war to any human failing, Lincoln reified the moral judgment: God was “dealing with us in anger” in retribution for evil. (One assumes that “our sins” referred to chattel slavery). For that reason, Lincoln asked all Americans to give thanks to God. In the midst of disaster, he said that it was time to give thanks. Accepting the war and suffering to be just, Lincoln considered God to be “beneficent:”

“I do, therefore, invite my fellow-citizens in every part of the United States, and also those who are at sea and those who are sojourning in foreign lands, to set apart and observe the last Thursday of November next as a Day of Thanksgiving and Praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the heavens.”

Only then did Lincoln call, not for revenge, but for healing. He implored for …

“… the interposition of the Almighty hand to heal the wounds of the nation, and to restore it, as soon as may be consistent with the Divine purposes, to the full enjoyment of peace, harmony, tranquility, and union.”

What Did the Gettysburg Address Really Say?

Lincoln’s response to horror and disaster was to give thanks to God, to emphasize the positive, and to call for restoration. Does it come as any surprise that so many Americans, including me, consider Lincoln to be not only our most eloquent, but also our greatest president? Let us now compare Lincoln’s uplifting proclamation with Donald Trump’s Thanksgiving post.

Trump’s Truth Social Post Gave Thanks for Vanquishing His Political Opponents

We fallen human beings often wish ill upon our enemies. Sadly, not all of us think and feel like Abraham Lincoln. Indeed, in conflict, in wartime, people often thank God for vanquishing their enemies. That is nothing new. In his Truth Social Post for Thanksgiving, Trump gave thanks – without mentioning God – for putting aside the “Radical Left Lunatics:”

Trump’s post reads, in its entirety:

Donald Trump, official portrait

“Happy Thanksgiving to all, including to the Radical Left Lunatics who have worked so hard to destroy our Country, but who have miserably failed, and will always fail, because their ideas and policies are so hopelessly bad that the great people of our Nation just gave a landslide victory to those who want to MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN! Don’t worry, our Country will soon be respected, productive, fair, and strong, and you will be, more than ever before, proud to be an American!” 

Trump gave only sarcastic thanks to the “Radical Left Lunatics.” While Lincoln obliquely condemned slavery, which was an unquestionable evil, Trump branded liberal policies as “hopelessly bad.” He falsely claimed to have obtained a “landslide victory.” As of today, December 1, 2024, with almost all of the votes counted, Trump received 49.9% of the popular vote, while Harris took 48.3%. Trump certainly won, but advantage of a mere 1.6% hardly counts as a landslide.

Trump said his opponents had “miserably failed, and will always fail.” Under his administration, however, “our Country will soon be respected, productive, fair, and strong.” The failure of others was merely an opportunity for Trump to achieve success. 

Trump gave thanks to himself and his own policies for the triumphs that had not yet occurred, but which, he said, surely would, because he and his cohorts, the winners, “want to MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!”

Trump did not give a message of unity. No, instead, Trump’s dark Thanksgiving message gave no credit to God and allowed no humanity to his opponents. He depicted a dark struggle between “lunatics” who wanted to destroy America, as compared with himself, who wanted to restore America.

Now, truly, apocalyptic rhetoric is often followed by a biblical Jeremiad: that is to say, in biblical terms that he himself probably did not understand, Trump pushed forward a vision of disaster and collapse, followed by restoration. Instead of making that victory out to be divine, instead of emulating Lincoln, who gave God all of the credit, Trump took the glory for himself.

Trump Against the "Radical Leftists"

 

Conclusion

Lincoln’s upcoming 1864 election gave the nation a stark choice: vote for Lincoln to end slavery but continue the bloodshed, or defeat him in the interest of an unjust peace in which a divided nation would continue to enslave unpaid and abused workers. The United States also faced a stark choice in the 2024 election. Trump’s Thanksgiving message accentuated that choice while emphasizing our nation’s ongoing divisions. Still, in contrast, during the American Civil War, a calamity of internal chaos that exceeded any domestic horror of later centuries, Lincoln looked to the positive and asked God to heal the nation; yet, in a time of relative peace and prosperity, Trump attacked his enemies. .

And who was right? Did the nation truly heed Lincoln’s plea for healing? Less than two short years after Lincoln’s proclamation, a pro-slavery assassin ended the president’s life. Sadly, sharecropping, Jim Crow laws, and the Ku Klux Klan quickly replaced slavery, leaving millions of formerly enslaved workers only a little bit better off than they had been. A division between the former free states and the former slave states still left its shadow on the 2024 election results. Just look at any election map. So, who was right? Do we give thanks for our imperfectly healed wounds? Or do we continue the cruel battle that began when Confederate soldiers shelled Fort Sumter in 1861? I shudder to think.

The Family Thanksgving Speech: What Are You Thankful For?

by William D. Harpine  

Copyright © by William D. Harpine

Portrait of Abraham Lincoln by Alexander Gardner, 1863, public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Donald Trump, official White House photo