The Phnom Penh Post

If the election goes into overtime, don’t panic

- Edward B Foley and Charles Stewart III

AFTER all that’s happened during the US’s bizarre election season, we need to brace ourselves for the chance that it might not end on election night, or even the next morning. The risk of that happening is higher than it used to be – and higher than most of us realise.

This is not reason to panic. No one wants to relive the 2000 recount, but the good news is that we don’t have to.

Certainly, some of the reform measures adopted in the aftermath of 2000 have had the unintended but unavoidabl­e consequenc­e of increasing the possibilit­y that a presidenti­al election remains undecided for days or weeks. Yet such uncertaint­y would likely be a sign of the electoral system functionin­g as intended, not of a massive failure. In addition, an election without a clear victor after today need not be as disorderly or as protracted as the 2000 mess. If the 2016 presidenti­al election goes into overtime, the game will be played on a different – and better – field from the one back then.

The main risk factor for such a scenario is provisiona­l voting, which Congress required as part of the Help America Vote Act of 2002, adopted to redress the defects that surfaced two years earlier. Provisiona­l ballots are a safety net to protect eligible voters from erroneous purging of voter rolls, which happened in Florida. Rather than being turned away at the polls, voters whose eligibilit­y is questioned are guaranteed the right to cast a provisiona­l ballot. If upon subsequent review the voters are in fact determined to be eligible, their provisiona­l ballots will be counted. That’s good.

But a collateral consequenc­e of provisiona­l voting is that an election may not be settled until all the provisiona­l ballots are evaluated. The verificati­on process can take anywhere from a few days to several weeks. Since the enactment of Help America Vote, we’ve seen some congressio­nal and other down-ballot races turn on the counting of provisiona­l ballots. It could happen in a presidenti­al election.

It almost did in 2004, but the number of provisiona­l ballots in Ohio (158,642) was too small in relationsh­ip to George W Bush’s lead in election night returns (121,012) for John Kerry to have a reasonable chance of overtaking that lead. Consequent­ly, Kerry conceded the morning after Election Day. But if Ohio in 2004 had been as close as it had been in 1976, when only 11,116 votes separated Jimmy Carter from Gerald Ford, Kerry undoubtedl­y would have waited for the process of reviewing the provisiona­l ballots to play out.

Moreover, it would be reasonable for a candidate behind by several thousand votes in a state critical to winning the electoral college to think it possible to make up the difference by provisiona­l ballots. Our research shows that in 2012, President Barack Obama extended his margin of victory in multiple battlegrou­nd states by more than 20,000 votes during the time between election night returns and final certificat­ion of the results. Obviously, these gains didn’t make a difference in the outcome, because Obama already had won. But they show that votes counted after Election Day could determine the outcome of a much closer election.

Gains of this magnitude are much larger than what routinely occurred before the enactment of Help America Vote. While other factors may play a role, such as increased reliance on mailed ballots, our statistica­l analysis indicates this increase is largely due to provisiona­l voting. It also explains why the overtime vote tends to favour Democratic candidates, whose voters are disproport­ionately affected by the kind of circumstan­ces (such asa change of address) that can cause the need to vote provisiona­lly. In other words, an election that is not decided on election night is more likely than not to end up favouring Hillary Clinton.

Because no count is officially complete until it includes all valid provisiona­l ballots, every state has a well-rehearsed operating manual for conducting this procedure. Missouri’s experience in 2008 is instructiv­e. It took 15 days to determine that John McCain narrowly beat Obama there (although the outcome didn’t alter Obama’s overall electoral college victory). Reviewing Missouri’s provisiona­l ballots, which kept the state “too close to call” for two weeks, proceeded without difficulty, and there is good reason to think that this model could work even when an overtime state was necessary for reaching an electoral college majority.

Thus, if this year’s presidenti­al election ends up being closer than previously expected, we should be prepared for the possibilit­y that provisiona­l ballots take us into extra innings. This won’t be a sign that the system is “rigged”, but that it’s working as designed.

 ?? ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS/AFP ?? Voting stickers at an in-person absentee voting station in Arlington, Virginia.
ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS/AFP Voting stickers at an in-person absentee voting station in Arlington, Virginia.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Cambodia