Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

2016 Postmortem

Showing Original Post only (View all)


(53,061 posts)
Tue Nov 8, 2016, 04:25 PM Nov 2016

Why Votecastr votes are different in Nevada [View all]

Votecastr http://www.slate.com/votecastr_election_day_turnout_tracker.html

They use a different model which tries to predict the vote on individuals who they know have voted. For that reason the early voting can only be put into their model once it has been officially entered into the register's data for that individual. Because they aren't using summaries of party affiliation but tracking individual votes they have to wait for each register's office to update which early and absentee voters have actually voted.

The overall news however is good.

Why VoteCastr’s Early Vote Numbers Look Different Than the Ones on Other Sites

As some astute readers have noticed, VoteCastr's estimated early vote totals do not add up to the totals released publicly by a number of states. In Nevada, the secretary of state has reported that 770,149 total ballots were cast early while VoteCastr has tracked only 593,893. In Colorado, the secretary of state had counted 1,852,029 votes as of Monday while VoteCastr has tracked 1,656,947. And in Florida, the secretary of state has reported a total of 6,511,712 early and mail-in ballots compared to 3,680,611 for VoteCastr.

What accounts for the difference? VoteCastr is able to apply its micro targeting model when it knows the identities of early voters. (I explained the ins and outs of that model here.) Because of the way early votes are reported—essentially, it’s a piecemeal process that happens at the county level—VoteCastr does not have specific voter identity information for every single early ballot. As a consequence, VoteCastr’s top-line numbers are going to be smaller than the ones you might find elsewhere. But, VoteCastr argues, its data are more robust.

. . .

What about Jon Ralston, the long-time Nevada journalist, who effectively called his home state for Clinton last week after getting a look at partial early voting numbers? Ralston has more intimate knowledge of Nevada than pretty much any journalist working today, and his predictions very well may come true. One major difference between Ralston’s approach and VoteCastr’s is that he is making an explicit prediction about what will happen, while VoteCastr is focused on the present: not who will win, but who is leading now. As of 2:10 p.m EST, VoteCastr has Hillary Clinton leading by 10,000 votes.

They explain in more detail about their micro voting data match and how there is a delay as they are getting actual voting information from a third party vendor (probably the same ones that the networks use). Right now there are 160,000 Early Votes in Nevada that they haven't put into their figures.

They are showing Secretary Clinton ahead in all of the swing states with a lot of early vote still not factored in. No big surprises. While there is still a lot more voting to occur it looks like Secretary Clinton has a better chance to run the board with all of the Swing states than Trump has getting to 270.
1 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Pretty good vadermike Nov 2016 #1
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Why Votecastr votes are d...»Reply #0