Evaluating a New Generation of Expansive Claims about Vote Manipulation
Michael Herron, the Remsen 1943 Professor of Quantitative Social Science and Chair of QSS, is the co-author of a recently published article, "Evaluating a New Generation of Expansive Claims about Vote Manipulation," in Election Law Journal. The other co-authors are Justin Grimmer of Stanford University and Matthew Tyler of Rice University).
In Fall 2024, Professor Herron will be teaching the QSS honors thesis seminar (QSS 81) as well as Sports Analytics (QSS 30.04).
The abstract of Professor Herron's new article is as follows:
Abstract:
In the wake of Donald Trump's attempt to overturn the 2020 presidential election, a cottage industry of conspiracy theorists has advanced ever more expansive claims of vote manipulation, going so far as to allege that all American elections are subject to manipulation—even in largely Republican states. In the extreme, these conspiracy theorists argue that candidates in U.S. elections are selected rather than elected. We evaluate two recent sets of claims about vote manipulation that allege algorithms are used to shift votes towards preferred candidates. Even though these claims are distinct, they fail for similar reasons. For example, both sets of claims assert that "unnaturally" accurate predictions of election results are evidence of vote manipulation, an allegation that is a result of predicting a variable with itself. Furthermore, both claims make easily refuted errors in logic and data analysis and in addition misrepresent historical election patterns. While recent claims about vote manipulation are prima facie outlandish, their effects on policy and the public are real. Refuting false claims about vote manipulation is essential to ensuring the continued functioning of U.S. elections and American democracy more generally.