Rachel Orey’s Post

Today the Union of Concerned Scientists launched our new Election Science Task Force. Read my blog to learn how we will work for science-based electoral reforms to make our democracy more free and fair for all voters. #electionscience #democracy https://lnkd.in/esZmSPmC

In the latest Explore 24 piece, we take a deep dive at the white vote, which is more than two-thirds of the voting population but has been decreasing in every election this century. https://lnkd.in/g4Cd42H7

As it turns out, according to a recent report by Braver Angels, Americans across the spectrum can indeed align on crucial election reforms. From ensuring free and fair elections to making voting more accessible while keeping it secure, BCB #91 outlines 23 bipartisan-supported reforms aiming to rebuild trust in our electoral process. Discover how collective action can bridge divides and fortify democracy for all. Read this week's bulletin here: https://lnkd.in/g7SKt6bw

🚨 2024 Election Alert: Montana's Pivotal Role! 🗳️ Montana's political landscape is shifting, and it could be a game-changer for the 2024 election! 🏔️ From key issues to influential candidates, the Big Sky Country is emerging as a crucial battleground. Discover how this state is poised to impact the national stage and why every vote counts more than ever. Read the full article on Liberty Nation to get the latest insights and stay informed! 👇https://bit.ly/469213C

US election 2024 Kamala Harris and Donald Trump are Neck and Neck https://econ.st/4eCrrtU Economist.com Last updated on October 11th 2024 Chance of winning the electoral college Donald Trump has about a 1 in 2 chance Kamala Harris has about a 1 in 2 chance 270 to win 2020 results Likely range Median Our model is updated every day and combines state and national polls with economic indicators to predict the election results across the country. To work out the probable electoral-vote totals, we run over 10,000 simulations of the election. The chance of a tie in the electoral college is less than 1 in 100. ECONOMIST.COM Methodology The Economist’s model of America’s presidential election estimates each major candidate’s chances of winning each state and the overall electoral college. Developed with a team of scholars at Columbia University, the forecast combines national and state-level polls with fundamental data about the state of the economy, historical voting patterns and the demographics of each state to predict the likelihood of various outcomes of the race. The model does this by constructing thousands of scenarios, each one containing different vote shares in each state and different values for the impact of polling biases and other characteristics. The model is more likely to generate scenarios that are closer to matching the polls and fundamental data it has been given. The win probabilities presented here represent the share of these scenarios won by each candidate. We made some small methodological adjustments when we relaunched our model on August 15th with Kamala Harris as the Democratic nominee, involving the treatment of likely-voter screens and partisan sponsorship in polls and the estimated accuracy of the fundamentals forecast. To maintain consistency, we reran this version of the model for the historical race between Donald Trump and Joe Biden. As a result, the probabilities listed here for those candidates in June and July differ slightly from the figures we published during those months. For more details on exactly how the model accomplishes this and the thinking behind its design, read the full methodology. Sources: American National Election Studies; Cooperative Congressional Election Study; FiveThirtyEight; Gallup; MIT Election and Data Science Lab; US Bureau of Economic Analysis; US Census Bureau; 270towin.com; YouGov Forecast by The Economist with Andrew Gelman and colleagues at Columbia University

Election polls are great content and useful for media stories. But using only surveys is a flawed approach in predicting what will happen and why. We don't lie when we respond to surveys but.... 1)Intentions - we have the best of intentions when we answer a question (Will you vote on election day?) but we don't always do what we say 2) We aim to please - we often say what you want to hear, instead of what we really think. We may say we would never...(vote for Brexit, Trump, Ford) depending on who we are speaking to...but voter results often tell a different story. In an increasingly polarised world this is an even bigger challenge 3) We change our minds - How we respond right now may not be how we feel after lunch, or tomorrow 4) We don't respond - fewer people answer their phones, their doors, their emails, so getting a meaningful survey sample is increasingly difficult

A majority of voters think the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and other government spies may be trying to pick the winner in this year’s election. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 52% of Likely U.S. Voters believe it’s likely that U.S. intelligence agencies are seeking to control the outcome of the 2024 presidential election, including 31% who consider it Very Likely. Thirty-eight percent (38%) don’t think intelligence agencies are trying to control the election, including 20% who say it’s Not At All Likely. Another 20% are not sure. (To see survey question wording, click link. https://lnkd.in/dygncTJP

More pragmatic ideas from Election Reformers Network for fixing conflict of interest in US democracy, this time re election officials overseeing their own races. Voters want restriction and election officials want to do the right thing but lack tools and guidance; we map out a state-led process to fix this problem in our latest report: https://lnkd.in/e7R-DFjT. https://lnkd.in/eY-Xj8rH

The Electoral College decides election outcomes on a state level, emphasizing the importance of focusing on state polls. Prioritize battleground state polls over national ones for a more accurate representation of final results. My commentary in Rasmussen Reports. Forget the National Polls – It’s the Battleground State Polls that Count!

🚨 New Research Alert! 🚨 This week, Verified Voting presented our latest findings on voter confidence and election audits. A few takeaways: 🔹 Voters trust their local elections but seek more info 🔹 Election audits boost confidence  🔹 Risk-Limiting Audits (RLAs) get strong support across parties once explained  🔹 Election officials need more support against misinformation Check out Electionline's coverage of the presentation, including key findings: https://lnkd.in/eiuHDBaG