|
 Topic: MediaPoliticsThe NYT "Needle" in 2016
The 2020 election showed that doing live reporting on election counts when the order of counting has a bias is misleading and emotionally draining. Of course, there is no actual "race" with totals moving back and forth, one candidate in the lead and then another. That's just an illusion created by the bias in the order. The result is actually a fixed fact after the polls close, and we're just uncovering different parts as time goes by.
It's a bit like scratching off a lottery card. The final result of the card is fixed, you just get some drama revealing bits of it at a time.
The press get good ratings and we can't stop them from reporting this, even when they know the reports are misleading. But instead of one number, there's really two numbers to show from partial results:
The best estimate of the final number based on your models and what data you have
The amount of uncertainty in that estimate (which you might show as a scalar, or as a distribution.)
As we know, Trump even worked to exploit that lie, known as the red mirage, to call the election into question. It's serious stuff.
This particular time, we the following large biases.
In person votes were usually counted before
|
|
