投票权法案诉讼中的证据:对种族投票模式的准确估计

IF 1.3 Q1 LAW Election Law Journal Pub Date : 2015-12-17 DOI:10.1089/ELJ.2013.0224
de Benedictis-KessnerJustin
{"title":"投票权法案诉讼中的证据:对种族投票模式的准确估计","authors":"de Benedictis-KessnerJustin","doi":"10.1089/ELJ.2013.0224","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Voting Rights Act litigation, even in the wake of Shelby County v. Holder, requires estimates of racial bloc voting, or the extent to which members of different racial groups vote differently. Although there are a variety of methods to make these estimates, direct evaluation and comparison of these methods is lacking. I examine these alternate methods in the way that they might be used in litigation using a large dataset of partisanship and racial information at the precinct level in five states. Additionally, I extend the application of these methods to estimation of racial group preferences in locations with more than one racial minority and assess the contextual determinants of larger and smaller errors in ecological regression estimates. I conclude that the ecological inference method developed by King (1997), which incorporates the deterministic precinct-level bounds on the quantities of interest and is easily implemented using open-source software, provides the best estimates for precinct-s...","PeriodicalId":45644,"journal":{"name":"Election Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2015-12-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1089/ELJ.2013.0224","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evidence in Voting Rights Act Litigation: Producing Accurate Estimates of Racial Voting Patterns\",\"authors\":\"de Benedictis-KessnerJustin\",\"doi\":\"10.1089/ELJ.2013.0224\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Voting Rights Act litigation, even in the wake of Shelby County v. Holder, requires estimates of racial bloc voting, or the extent to which members of different racial groups vote differently. Although there are a variety of methods to make these estimates, direct evaluation and comparison of these methods is lacking. I examine these alternate methods in the way that they might be used in litigation using a large dataset of partisanship and racial information at the precinct level in five states. Additionally, I extend the application of these methods to estimation of racial group preferences in locations with more than one racial minority and assess the contextual determinants of larger and smaller errors in ecological regression estimates. I conclude that the ecological inference method developed by King (1997), which incorporates the deterministic precinct-level bounds on the quantities of interest and is easily implemented using open-source software, provides the best estimates for precinct-s...\",\"PeriodicalId\":45644,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Election Law Journal\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2015-12-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1089/ELJ.2013.0224\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Election Law Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1089/ELJ.2013.0224\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Election Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1089/ELJ.2013.0224","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

选举权法案诉讼,即使是在谢尔比县诉霍尔德案之后,也需要对种族集团投票进行估计,或者不同种族群体成员投票的差异程度。虽然有多种方法来进行这些估计,但缺乏对这些方法的直接评价和比较。我使用了五个州选区的党派和种族信息的大型数据集,以在诉讼中可能使用的方式来研究这些替代方法。此外,我将这些方法的应用扩展到在有多个少数民族的地区估计种族群体偏好,并评估生态回归估计中较大和较小误差的背景决定因素。我的结论是,King(1997)开发的生态推断方法,结合了兴趣数量的确定性区域级界限,并且很容易使用开源软件实现,为区域-s提供了最佳估计。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Evidence in Voting Rights Act Litigation: Producing Accurate Estimates of Racial Voting Patterns
Abstract Voting Rights Act litigation, even in the wake of Shelby County v. Holder, requires estimates of racial bloc voting, or the extent to which members of different racial groups vote differently. Although there are a variety of methods to make these estimates, direct evaluation and comparison of these methods is lacking. I examine these alternate methods in the way that they might be used in litigation using a large dataset of partisanship and racial information at the precinct level in five states. Additionally, I extend the application of these methods to estimation of racial group preferences in locations with more than one racial minority and assess the contextual determinants of larger and smaller errors in ecological regression estimates. I conclude that the ecological inference method developed by King (1997), which incorporates the deterministic precinct-level bounds on the quantities of interest and is easily implemented using open-source software, provides the best estimates for precinct-s...
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
16.70%
发文量
13
期刊最新文献
Dropbox Allocation and Use Among Georgia Voters in the 2020 Election Voter Information Search and Ranked Choice Voting Can Election Administration Overcome the Effects of Restrictive State Voting Laws? Assessing Precinct Consolidation Strategies Through Simulation Optimization Does the Framing of Information Regarding Foreign Election Interference Matter? Evidence from a Survey Experiment in Canada
×
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