-1

I have seen that Hillary Clinton's pop vote lead grew as more votes were counted. For the first example, in a video by Fox News, Clinton won the popular vote by 1.7 million votes, and she won by 2.9 million when the votes were all counted. (This is not Fox being Fox, this is votes taking more time to count.)

They also become more left leaning. See that video from the Damage Report. It shows Bowman with a 24 point lead. As more votes were counted, the lead grew to 27 points and will likely grow further as more votes are counted from mail in.

This trend may have implications. An example is the NY-12 race. Carolyn Maloney is leading by only about 650 votes. If this trend persists and there are enough mail in votes, Patel, a progressive challenger, will win.

Sources:

Fox: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1qsNSeighXY&t=80s Damage Report: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CvEb5RDsLKA&t=61s Lead on June 24: https://ibb.co/crxp1tw

This appears to not just be US only, and seems to be related to the urban vs. rural divide. See "https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/6240/why-do-late-counted-votes-tend-to-be-democratic-in-most-states".

Improve this question
5
  • 1
    Why do I feel that this almost-exact question was asked and deleted very recently?
    – Joe C
    Commented Jun 28, 2020 at 12:52
  • 1
    No it wasn't that was very very different.
    – user32820
    Commented Jun 28, 2020 at 12:53
  • 4
    Wouldn't this be the case for literally any winning candidate in literally any election?
    – F1Krazy
    Commented Jun 28, 2020 at 13:20
  • 1
    I mean disproportionately when the percentage/margin of the lead grows. See the example up there. Clinton ended up with 51.1% of votes cast for her or Trump and she had less than that before it was finished.
    – user32820
    Commented Jun 28, 2020 at 13:25
  • 1
    Why does the linked question not answer your question here?
    – Azor Ahai -him-
    Commented Jun 28, 2020 at 18:47

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
2

Urban areas tend to vote Democratic, and have a comparatively large numbers of 9-5 workers — white collar, blue collar, and service work — who cannot get to the polls early. In the last few decades, urban areas have also tended to have more compacted polling stations, i.e., polling stations with insufficient personnel or equipment to handle the amount of traffic they receive. That latter may be attributed to poor management or active voter suppression as one is inclined, but the net result is that people in urban areas are forced to go to the polls later and obliged to wait longer to cast their vote. This pushes a disproportionate number of Democratic votes to the bottom of the stack, where they are tallied last.

This issue would be solved by a national voting holiday — a biennial day off so that all citizens could go to the polls — but as old as that idea is it has never gained much traction in Congress.

Improve this answer
1
  • 1
    Zero evidence for ANY of it, and some of it actively wrong (like conflating 9-5 workers with urban, because it's not like non-urban areas have people who work or urban areas have a ton of people who don't work). Also, many if not most urban areas - at lease NYC - have laws on the books about people being required to be given time off to vote.
    – user4012
    Commented Jun 29, 2020 at 13:34