Recount vs. audit: Which is more precise? And could either change election outcome?

As states grapple with legal challenges from the Trump campaign, debates are arising about whether states should undergo a vote recount or vote audit. The process raises questions about which is more precise and whether either could change the outcome of the presidential race.

Procedures for audits and recounts, and whether they are required or even allowed, vary from state to state. A recount usually takes place in a close race. States have set margins where a recount automatically takes place or where a stakeholder in the process can request one.

Tom Spencer, vice president of the Lawyers Democracy Fund (LDF) and an attorney representing the George W. Bush 2000 campaign, told Just the News that the main purpose of a recount is to determine the outcome of the race. Usually, the ballots are literally recounted — fed back through the counting machine or sometimes recounted by hand. 

"Recounts usually do not result in changes of vote totals of more than a couple hundred votes, but recounts have overturned election results in close races," Spencer said. "One of the most famous examples was when the result of the Coleman-Franken 2008 Minnesota Senate race was changed after a recount," giving the seat to Democrat Al Franken.

In contrast, an audit may take place regardless of what the final vote count is. The purpose of an audit is to make sure that the election was administered properly, that is that the equipment functioned correctly and counting procedures were done properly. An audit can involve something similar to a recount without it being an official recount. Audits are not more likely to change the election result than a recount, Spencer said, but they are more likely to identify systemic problems with an election, such as a type of machine that had problems.