The Quick Count and Election Observation

THE QUICK COUNT AND ELECTION OBSERVATION
simply by the proportional distributions of missing data across each of
the strata. For example, if in the rural areas Party B’s support is greater
than party A’s by a ratio of 6:4, and 50 percent of the missing data are
in the rural areas, then all that is required is an adjustment of the stabilized
results that allocates additional votes to Party B and Party A by a
ratio of 6:4 for those missing cases. The same procedure is followed for
each of the other two strata. This weighting procedure is a technical
adjustment to the stabilized data from the effective sample. For statistical
reasons it is clear that, if the minimal limits for each of the strata have
been satisfied, then it is highly unlikely that such adjustments would have
any material effect on the outcome of the election. Nonetheless, the
weighting procedure and the technical adjustment produces a statistically
more accurate quick count result.
• Projecting a close race—The most difficult circumstances facing quick
count analysts are those that arise from a very close competition between
rival political parties. Under these conditions, it is particularly important
for analysts to resist any pressure for the early release of quick count
results and to concentrate on the main task of accumulating as much
data from the sample as possible. At issue is the margin of error of the
effective sample. If the stabilized results show that the votes for the main
contestants for office (Party A and Party B) are separated by less than the
margin of error of the effective sample, then the quick count results cannot
statistically project who the winner should be. That same principle
can be expressed as a more positive rule of thumb: quick count data are
reliable and can be released when the data within each strata have reached
the point of stability, and when the difference in levels of voter support for
rival political parties exceeds the margins of error of the effective sample.
If the stabilized results
show that the votes
for the main contestants
for office (Party
A and Party B) are
separated by less than
the margin of error of
the effective sample,
then the quick count
results cannot statistically
project who the
winner should be.
119
Careful analysts will work through all of the above checks before coming to
their conclusion.
Has a close election ever significantly delayed the release of
quick count results?
Yes. For example in Peru’s 2000 presidential election, the race between political
rivals was so close and so hotly contested that the willingness of the observer
group (Transparencia) to release a quick count result hinged not only on missing
data but also on the analysis of a subsample of polling stations located in foreign
countries. The question facing analysts in that particular case was: could
the outstanding votes put the leading candidate over 50 percent to avoid a runoff?
In this instance, the leadership of Transparencia was sufficiently experienced
to resist the release of the quick count data until that detailed analysis had been
concluded. Transparencia’s credibility as a nonpartisan group with substantial
technical competence allowed the public to accept with confidence Transparencia’s
projection that a second round should be required.