A Misuse of Statistical Reasoning: The Statistical Arguments Offered by Texas to the Supreme Court in an Attempt to Overturn the Results of the 2020 Election

IF 1.5 Q2 SOCIAL SCIENCES, MATHEMATICAL METHODS Statistics and Public Policy Pub Date : 2021-05-25 DOI:10.1080/2330443X.2022.2050327
W. Miao, Qing Pan, J. Gastwirth
{"title":"A Misuse of Statistical Reasoning: The Statistical Arguments Offered by Texas to the Supreme Court in an Attempt to Overturn the Results of the 2020 Election","authors":"W. Miao, Qing Pan, J. Gastwirth","doi":"10.1080/2330443X.2022.2050327","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In December 2020, Texas filed a motion to the U.S. Supreme Court claiming that the four battleground states: Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin did not conduct their 2020 presidential elections in compliance with the Constitution. Texas supported its motion with a statistical analysis purportedly demonstrating that it was highly improbable that Biden had more votes than Trump in the four battleground states. This article points out that Texas’s claim is logically flawed and the analysis submitted violated several fundamental principles of statistics.","PeriodicalId":43397,"journal":{"name":"Statistics and Public Policy","volume":"9 1","pages":"67 - 73"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2021-05-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Statistics and Public Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/2330443X.2022.2050327","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, MATHEMATICAL METHODS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Abstract In December 2020, Texas filed a motion to the U.S. Supreme Court claiming that the four battleground states: Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin did not conduct their 2020 presidential elections in compliance with the Constitution. Texas supported its motion with a statistical analysis purportedly demonstrating that it was highly improbable that Biden had more votes than Trump in the four battleground states. This article points out that Texas’s claim is logically flawed and the analysis submitted violated several fundamental principles of statistics.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
滥用统计推理:得克萨斯州向最高法院提供的统计论据试图推翻2020年大选的结果
摘要2020年12月,得克萨斯州向美国最高法院提出动议,声称宾夕法尼亚州、佐治亚州、密歇根州和威斯康星州这四个关键州没有按照宪法进行2020年总统选举。得克萨斯州通过一项统计分析支持了其动议,据称该分析表明,拜登在四个战场州的选票极不可能超过特朗普。这篇文章指出,得克萨斯州的说法在逻辑上有缺陷,提交的分析违反了统计学的几个基本原则。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Statistics and Public Policy
Statistics and Public Policy SOCIAL SCIENCES, MATHEMATICAL METHODS-
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
6.20%
发文量
13
审稿时长
32 weeks
期刊最新文献
State-Building through Public Land Disposal? An Application of Matrix Completion for Counterfactual Prediction Clusters of Jail Incarcerations in US Counties: 2010-2018 Comment on ‘What protects the autonomy of the Federal Statistics Agencies? An Assessment of the Procedures in Place That Protect the Independence and Objectivity of Official Statistics” by Pierson et al. On Coping in a Non-Binary World: Rejoinder to Biedermann and Kotsoglou Commentary on “Three-Way ROCs for Forensic Decision Making” by Nicholas Scurich and Richard S. John (in: Statistics and Public Policy)
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1