SCROLL NEWS / DISCOVERY
Search headlines
Find the stories shaping the conversation.
Results for " DCI " 138 found 🔀 AI-powered Shuffle
KNIGHTS SPORTS UPDATE: Check out the sporting events on campus from April 24 to May 1
Weekly events listing spotlights Knights’ athletics
Reclassifying marijuana as a less dangerous drug might only be the first step for Trump
President Donald Trump’s decision to reclassify state-licensed medical marijuana as a less dangerous drug is a boon for the industry.
Shaky political science: using "simulated" elections over real-world elections
[Dear DSOS readers – this article is the latest in our “Shaky Political Science” series. In our 38 page report, “Shaky political ‘science’ misses mark on ranked choice voting,” released in early December, we examined over 40 studies focused on ranked choice voting. We found that many of these studies suffered from puzzling research methodologies, poorly constructed surveys, unrealistic simulated elections, cherry picked data, and faulty analyses that often were contradicted by results from real-world elections (a link to our full paper is here). Here are links to the first three articles in our series: the first one summarizing the overall results of our report, the second one analyzing a study co-authored by University of Minnesota academic Larry Jacobs, which was one of the most error-prone of all the research we reviewed in our report, and a third article showing an admirable example of two political scientists holding two other political scientists accountable for their flawed, sloppy research]. In this fourth article in our “Shaky Political Science” series, we shine a spotlight on seven studies that were web-hosted and funded by New America’s Political Reform Program and its Electoral Reform Research Group (the ERRG is an ad hoc committee headed by New America’s Political Reform Program and joined by the American Enterprise Institute, the Unite America Institute and Stanford University’s Center on Democracy, Development, and the Rule of Law). This research consortium has been led by Lee Drutman, senior fellow with New America’s Political Reform Program. These seven studies are simply not credible from any objective standard about how political “science” is supposed to illuminate our understanding of either ranked choice voting or politics in general. The feature that six of these seven studies have in common is that they all used surveys – artificial, simulated elections -- to attempt to say something cogent or interesting about ranked choice voting (RCV) elections. None of them used real world data from actual RCV elections – either the 1000+ elections in the US or the many thousands of elections from places like Australia, Ireland and elsewhere where RCV has been used for 100 years. While a few of these studies conclude with some mixed positives about RCV, our analysis here is content neutral. The idea that, with a political reform like RCV, you can ask respondents in a mock, artificial election to vote with that method, with only the barest of explanation about how RCV works or its likely impacts (i.e. no spoiler candidates, majority winners, voters liberated to pick their favorite candidates, coalition-building), and then ask them their thoughts/reactions about voting in that system, with fake candidates and no real campaigning, no real exposure to an actual election or actual candidates, rests on some very puzzling assumptions. The findings of these seven studies actually are contradicted by the findings from many other studies based on real-world RCV elections. These New America studies also failed to list the real-world RCV studies in their own citations, instead including those studies that reinforced their conclusions. The seven studies featured in this article were chosen because they form a cohesive cohort which precisely illustrates one of the main points of our research paper, namely that using surveys, i.e. artificial elections, or mathematical/theoretical models, instead of real-world data, is in fact “shaky political science.” Below are summaries of our analysis of five of the seven New America studies. You can read our complete analysis of all seven studies at our paper, “Shaky political ‘science’ misses mark on ranked choice voting.” Choosing to “Vote As Usual” by Andre Blais, Carolina Plescia, and Semra Sevi. New America. (Blais et al., 2021). This study, web-hosted and funded by New America’s Political Reform Program and its Electoral Reform Research Group, used two surveys in which respondents completed ballots for simulated elections using plurality, approval, RCV and point (Score) voting. In both cases the authors provided the respondents with only minimal explanation of each method. For example, the entire explanation for RCV was “For this vote, rank the candidates from your first to your last choice (you do not need to rank them all). This is called the ranked vote.” That’s it. The study did not provide any context or explanation to survey respondents about why she/he might want to rank multiple candidates. Participants were not even told that ballots would be tabulated using an “instant” runoff, not to mention any description of RCVs ability to eliminate the spoiler effect or liberate voters to rank their favorite candidates without fear of helping the “greater evil” candidate to win. That’s like taking an iPhone back in time to 1970 and asking someone if they like it better than their rotary phone without explaining how it works. Their first survey targeted states that held 2020 Super Tuesday Democratic primaries and used the real candidates’ names in the survey; the second survey used fictitious candidates. In other words, they surveyed respondents who had only ever participated in plurality elections, had no history or background with using RCV or any of the other methods, had no clue about its likely impacts, and did not communicate how the alternative methods would be counted, and then asked them: “How satisfied are you with using each system?” Predictably, the winner was plurality elections, the system used for president, Congress, gubernatorial and state legislative elections – in other words, the method they have been using, year after year, all their voting lives. With so little explanation of RCV and its impacts, this study is simply not credible in discovering anything useful about real-world RCV elections. It merely shows that a basic voter education campaign is needed when adopting a new election system. Additionally, the result contradicts many other post-election surveys following real RCV elections, asking opinions from voters who had just participated in a RCV election, that showed a great deal of satisfaction with RCV (see details on that in Studies 22-25 in our paper, as well as the four studies cited in the review for Study 28). Share Other studies on “satisfaction” and “understanding” make similar mistakes, in terms of basing their surveys on inadequate explanation to respondents and lack of education about context. How could any survey ever hope to measure accurately, in essence simulate a real-world election, without actual campaigning candidates, the media writing about those candidates, organizations endorsing candidates and voters being inundated with crucial information? More than anything, what these “studies” based on surveys show is that if you ask voters about something they don’t know very much about, and fail to adequately educate them, their responses will unsurprisingly reflect their confusion. Equally puzzling is that New America’s Electoral Reform Research Group, headed by political scientist Lee Drutman, found this to be a credible enough study that they not only published it but highlighted it in Drutman’s own discussion of research related to ranked choice voting. This pattern was repeated in study after study featured by New America’s Electoral Reform Research Group. For example in Ranked-Choice Voting and Political Expression: Voter Guides Narrow the Gap between Informed and Uninformed Citizens by Cheryl Boudreau, Jonathan Colner, and Scott MacKenzie, the researchers based their analysis on a survey which found that respondents who were asked to vote in a simulated RCV election, with minimal explanation of RCV or how it works, displayed less evidence of being informed about how to use RCV effectively, with the least informed voters ranking fewer candidates. As pointed out under the study above, in a real election voters are informed by a wide variety of methods, including public education by the election administration, by interested political groups, the media, and the candidates themselves who benefit from voters being aware of how to vote in the new system. In Support for Ranked-Choice Voting across Race and Partisanship by Joseph Anthony, David C. Kimball, Jack Santucci and Jamil Scott, the researchers used respondents from different parties and races voting in simulated plurality and RCV elections, who indicated their satisfaction with each voting method. Instead of using real world election results, the authors fell back on the easy, armchair and less reliable academic research methodology of making up mock elections. As with the other studies, little explanation was given of how RCV works or what its implications might be (electing majority winners or eliminating spoilers, for example). Unsurprisingly, this study found that respondents were not very satisfied with RCV. However, when the authors added an explanation that RCV has a tendency to elect more women and people of color, they found that this greater explanation increased the preference for RCV. The more voters were familiar with it, and the more they understood potential positive impacts – surprise! -- the more they were open to switching away from the status quo. Of note, the results from this study are thoroughly contradicted by a number of other studies whose data was obtained from real RCV elections with real voters. Those studies show a great deal of satisfaction with RCV. More “fake election” research An interesting wrinkle on this “research by fake elections” approach, which only served to illustrate how unreliable such “research” can become, was taken in Ranked-Choice Voting, Runoff, and Democracy: Insights from Maine and Other U.S. States by Joseph Cerrone and Cynthia McClintock_,_ also web-hosted and funded by New America’s ERRG. It gets high marks for creativity, but an eye-roll for thinking this could possibly add anything meaningful to our understanding of real world RCV elections. This study tried to determine whether RCV, plurality or two-round runoff elections provided greater voter satisfaction and acceptance of election results. To determine that, the authors conducted a survey asking if voters were satisfied with a fictional newspaper report of an election, with three different versions given to respondents – plurality, runoff and RCV, with variations of Republican/Democrat winners and variations of “come-from-behind” winners,” i.e. candidates not initially in first place but who win the “runoff.” Again, a minimal explanation of RCV or how it works was given, and the survey showed that respondents had the greatest unfamiliarity with RCV than the other methods. The unsurprising result? Respondents were much more satisfied with “come-from-behind” victories in a traditional two-round runoff election than in RCV, even though RCV is also a runoff system but with a single round of counting. Interestingly, the dissatisfaction with RCV disappeared for those who were more familiar with RCV. In fact, among those respondents who were “very familiar” with RCV, they were equally satisfied with RCV, runoff and plurality. Surprise, surprise. Again, what this study revealed, more than anything, is not only the inadequacy of the explanation for RCV given by the authors of this study, but the failure of the research format itself, thinking that such an artificial mock election could somehow simulate what actually happens in the real world in a real RCV election. Those four studies reviewed above are fitting examples of inadequate and shaky political “science.” Other studies reviewed in our paper from the New America/Electoral Reform Research Group cohort which also used mock elections included: Ranked-Choice Voting is an Acquired Taste by Joseph Anthony and David C. Kimball. New America. (Anthony et al., 2021). Ranked-Choice Voting is No Refuge for Extreme Candidates by Melissa Baker. New America. (Baker, 2021). Also included in this New America cohort is Does Ranked-Choice Voting Reduce Racial Polarization? by Yuki Atsusaka and Theodore Landsman, which actually did use real-world election results data but applied an odd and unconventional methodology to the data which relied on shaky assumptions and non-real-world scenarios that were too divorced from reality. To determine levels of “racially polarized voting,” the researchers imagined “ethnic parties,” by which they mean political parties for each ethnic group, which was especially odd since the election data they were using came from nonpartisan RCV races. But then they made an even odder assumption, namely that since race and ethnic characteristics of studied voters were not available, the authors tried to infer that information based on who voters selected and the racial make-up of voters in each district. This amounted to little more than vague and ambiguous guesswork dressed up with a bunch of mathematical equations used to give it a veneer of scientific appearance. Indeed, it seemed to assume racial polarization in order to prove racial polarization. Based on this questionable methodology, the authors concluded that RCV doesn’t reduce racial polarization. But the premise of this study missed an obvious reality: since RCV incentivizes more candidates to run and can result in more diverse fields of candidates, one would expect more racially-polarized voting in voters’ top rankings, not less, because more voters would have someone on that ballot who represents their racial or ethnic identity and more freedom to vote for their real first choice. By encouraging more diverse candidates and eliminating the spoiler effect, RCV facilitates voting for a favorite candidate of your own race and then selecting a second choice with the best likelihood of winning. The real measure is what voters do with their additional rankings – do they consider other candidates and vote “for the best of the rest”? This study didn’t tell us anything useful about that. But readily available data shows this is common in real RCV elections, and candidates act on this knowledge by engaging with voters outside their racial group. So the authors of this study failed to consider or account for what actually happens in real-world elections, and their conclusions are tainted by this failure. New America has contributed a great deal over the past 2.5 decades to our understanding of many policy areas, including politics and political reform (full disclosure: Steven Hill, one of the authors of this article and of the “Shaky Political Science” research paper and series, is a former senior fellow and former director of New America’s political reform program, 2005-2010). So it was especially disappointing that New America funded and published such a large batch of dubious studies about ranked choice voting. The stated praiseworthy goal of its Electoral Reform Research Group was to inspire new academic research about ranked choice voting that would shed light and help the public better understand the impacts of RCV. Instead, the ERRG research did just the opposite. It produced dubious research that created more confusion and misinformation. In so doing, New America’s political reform program contributed to “shaky political science.” Steven Hill and Paul Haughey Share Upgrade to $5 subscription Thanks for reading DemocracySOS, a reader-supported digital portal for the pro-democracy movement. Subscribe for only $5 per month to receive full benefits and to support our work. Subscribe
Guardian Sports' protection efforts in growing flag football safety
During his interview with @EdEastonJr, Guardian Sports COO Jake Hanson discussed safety efforts in the growth of flag football
KNIGHTS SPORTS UPDATE: Check out the sporting events on campus from April 17-24
Weekly events listing spotlights Knights’ athletics
Small business owners sound alarm on word that Hamilton County may sell Business Incubator
Small Business owners at the Hamilton County Business Development Center say they’re worried about the future of the facility as the County Commission is set to
Apple Launches New All-in-One Apple Business Platform for Device Management, Email, and Customer...
Apple today launched its new all-in-one Apple Business platform, debuting the refreshed Apple Business web portal and accompanying app. Apple Business aggregates several of Apple's prior business-focused products, like Apple Business Essentials, Apple Business Manager, and Apple Business Connect. The service offers organizations a unified platform for managing devices, employees, communications, and customer engagement across the Apple ecosystem.
Rice Business Plan Competition 2026 winners announced
Another team from the Great Lakes State took home top honors and investments at this year's Rice Business Plan Competition.
Yankees Social Media Spotlight: At Least Jeter’s Happy
Derek Jeter’s Michigan Wolverines won the NCAA Men’s National Championship. Nothing else of note happened this week.
KNIGHTS SPORTS UPDATE: Check out the sporting events on campus from April 10-17
Weekly events listing spotlights Knights’ athletics
Every Alabama player drafted by the Golden State Warriors
Let's take a look at every player who has been drafted by the Warriors out of Alabama.
How Are Health Systems Assessing ROI for AI Tools?
Michael Meucci, CEO of health data platform Arcadia, thinks health systems are changing their thinking about ROI when it comes to AI projects. As providers face tighter budgets, he said they’re broadening how they measure AI’s ROI, including benefits like reducing clinician burnout.
KNIGHTS SPORTS UPDATE: Check out sporting events on campus from March 27 to April 3 (with audio/video)
Weekly events listing spotlights of Knights athletics
iPhone spyware is everyone's problem now
Anyone with an iPhone can now be the target of invasive malware that siphons off personal texts, call histories and calendar data.
Introducing the Ultimate Earbuds for Every Workout: Nike x Powerbeats Pro 2
The special-edition earbuds deliver premium sound that empowers athletes to tune out the noise, stay focused on their goals and push beyond their limits.
Food City presents check to Niswonger Children's Hospital; Frontier Health
Representatives of Food City gave out checks to support the Niswonger Children's Hospital and Frontier Health.
Paceman Seales to replace Neser at Hampshire
West Indies pace bowler Jayden Seales will replace Michael Neser at Hampshire for the opening rounds of the County Championship season.
2026 Cubs: Know your enemy, AL Central
Good teams, middling teams and one really bad team
Betty Heath: Taxes, politics and the worry bird
We have a very taxing situation at our house. The weather has been overrated and understated.
Young & Established hosts 3rd annual Black Business Showcase
Local Black-owned businesses were highlighted at the the 3rd annual Black Business Showcase.
The 3 Big Unknowns About the EPA’s Biggest Climate Science Rollback Ever
What to watch for when the agency releases its final decision on the greenhouse gas endangerment finding.
Google says it's working to fix Gmail issue that's led to flooded inboxes and increased spam warnings
Gmail users have reported problems with their automatic filters that typically separate promotional emails from the main inbox.
Scientists found the perfect temperature for baking cookies. It could be surprisingly important.
The results could lead to far greater things than just yummier cookies.
Meta Compute, The Meta-OpenAI Battle, The Reality Labs Sacrifice
Mark Zuckerberg announced Meta Compute, a bet that winning in AI means winning with infrastructure; this, however, means retreating from Reality Labs.
Apple and Gemini, Foundation vs. Aggregation, Universal Commerce Protocol
The deal to put Gemini at the heart of Siri is official, and it makes sense for both sides; then Google runs its classic playbook with Universal Commerce Protocol.
Sabalenka beats Kostyuk to win third Brisbane title
World number one Aryna Sabalenka prepares for the Australian Open with a 6-4 6-3 victory over Marta Kostyuk to win a third Brisbane International title.
Ben Johnson calls out Bears' offense after team's lackluster performance in Week 18: 'I was not pleased'
Bears in the playoffs, but the job’s not finished
The audio and video from the latest @TheRealEvanMac & @RossRead Show talking Bears @2ndCityGridiron is right here!
Workplace Medicine: Building health and business together | LMH Health
LMH Health Workplace Medicine is redefining occupational medicine in Lawrence and beyond. With a focus on communication, relationships and comprehensive care, we help keep employees safe, healthy and thriving.
How monopolies caused havoc around the world in 2025
From tech companies to airlines and streaming services, monopolies are becoming more problematic around the world.
Almost half of the top MLB free agents remain unsigned
The Cubs still have plenty of time to put one (or more!) of these players under contract.
Getting you ready for Bears vs 49ers
Join @2ndCityGridiron’s Bear Bones with @MasonWestPT discussing all things Bears vs 49ers!
Houston hailed as one of America's 10 best cities for startups
Houston's favorable economic climate is enticing entrepreneurs.
How Pro Bowl rosters can be latest motivator for Jaguars
Here is how the AFC Pro Bowl rosters could be the latest motivator for the Jacksonville Jaguars.
Which Mid City Mall businesses are closing? What we know
Mid City Mall went on the market in 2024, according to previous reporting by The Courier Journal.
These 50+ Houston scientists rank among world’s most cited
Fifty-one scientists and professors from Houston-area universities and institutions were named among the most cited in the world for their research in medicine, materials sciences and an array of other fields.
'We were amazed': Scientists using James Webb telescope may have discovered the earliest supernova in the known universe
Astronomers using the James Webb Space Telescope report that a powerful gamma-ray burst detected in March may have been produced by the explosion of a massive star just 730 million years after the Big Bang.
MedCity FemFwd: How Women's Health Advocates Is Pushing for Change
In this episode, we’re joined by Liz Powell, founder of Women's Health Advocates. We discussed the organization’s policy priorities in the women's health space.