3 ms·
When "higher turnout" is still low enough in national elections that the missing amount is more than the differential in the popular vote, this doesn't disprove
by saghm 1y ago
When "higher turnout" is still low enough in national elections that the missing amount is more than the differential in the popular vote, this doesn't disprove anything. You're citing an approximate statistical poll to try to mitigate that, but the entire point of the census is that right now the way it works is to try its best _not_ use those methods and instead attempt to actually get responses from everyone.
- rayiner 1y agoThe study modeled what would have happened if everyone had voted. Another comprehensive study found the same thing. If everyone voted, Trump would have won by almost 5 points: https://data.blueroseresearch.org/hubfs/2024%20Blue%20Rose%20Research%20Retrospective.pdf https://data.blueroseresearch.org/hubfs/2024%20Blue%20Rose%2... (slide 6).
- saghm 1y ago"Modeled" is the key point here. If one accepts the premise that modeling is close enough to reality that the differences aren't meaningful to be worth measuring with a full census count, then the change to census collection won't seem problematic. If one rejects that premise, it follows that the difference between the statistical modeling and the reality of a full census count might be significant enough to be worth measuring. That "difference" is a chunk of people who might not fit the expectations of the modeling, and it would be entirely expected that the ones who would benefit more from the model's expectations compared to the full census count would be the ones who are in favor of using the modeling.