-
Cast vote records: A database of ballots from the 2020 U.S. Election
Authors:
Shiro Kuriwaki,
Mason Reece,
Samuel Baltz,
Aleksandra Conevska,
Joseph R. Loffredo,
Can Mutlu,
Taran Samarth,
Kevin E. Acevedo Jetter,
Zachary Djanogly Garai,
Kate Murray,
Shigeo Hirano,
Jeffrey B. Lewis,
James M. Snyder Jr.,
Charles H. Stewart III
Abstract:
Ballots are the core records of elections. Electronic records of actual ballots cast (cast vote records) are available to the public in some jurisdictions. However, they have been released in a variety of formats and have not been independently evaluated. Here we introduce a database of cast vote records from the 2020 U.S. general election. We downloaded publicly available unstandardized cast vote…
▽ More
Ballots are the core records of elections. Electronic records of actual ballots cast (cast vote records) are available to the public in some jurisdictions. However, they have been released in a variety of formats and have not been independently evaluated. Here we introduce a database of cast vote records from the 2020 U.S. general election. We downloaded publicly available unstandardized cast vote records, standardized them into a multi-state database, and extensively compared their totals to certified election results. Our release includes vote records for President, Governor, U.S. Senate and House, and state upper and lower chambers -- covering 42.7 million voters in 20 states who voted for more than 2,204 candidates. This database serves as a uniquely granular administrative dataset for studying voting behavior and election administration. Using this data, we show that in battleground states, 1.9 percent of solid Republicans (as defined by their congressional and state legislative voting) in our database split their ticket for Joe Biden, while 1.2 percent of solid Democrats split their ticket for Donald Trump.
△ Less
Submitted 24 October, 2024;
originally announced November 2024.
-
Privacy Violations in Election Results
Authors:
Shiro Kuriwaki,
Jeffrey B. Lewis,
Michael Morse
Abstract:
After an election, should election officials release a copy of each anonymous ballot? Some policymakers have championed public disclosure to counter distrust, but others worry that it might undermine ballot secrecy. We introduce the term vote revelation to refer to the linkage of a vote on an anonymous ballot to the voter's name in the public voter file, and detail how such revelation could theore…
▽ More
After an election, should election officials release a copy of each anonymous ballot? Some policymakers have championed public disclosure to counter distrust, but others worry that it might undermine ballot secrecy. We introduce the term vote revelation to refer to the linkage of a vote on an anonymous ballot to the voter's name in the public voter file, and detail how such revelation could theoretically occur. Using the 2020 election in Maricopa County, Arizona, as a case study, we show that the release of individual ballot records would lead to no revelation of any vote choice for 99.83% of voters as compared to 99.95% under Maricopa's current practice of reporting aggregate results by precinct and method of voting. Further, revelation is overwhelmingly concentrated among the few voters who cast provisional ballots or federal-only ballots. We discuss the potential benefits of transparency, compare remedies to reduce or eliminate privacy violations, and highlight the privacy-transparency tradeoff inherent in all election reporting.
△ Less
Submitted 14 March, 2025; v1 submitted 8 August, 2023;
originally announced August 2023.
-
Evaluating Bias and Noise Induced by the U.S. Census Bureau's Privacy Protection Methods
Authors:
Christopher T. Kenny,
Cory McCartan,
Shiro Kuriwaki,
Tyler Simko,
Kosuke Imai
Abstract:
The United States Census Bureau faces a difficult trade-off between the accuracy of Census statistics and the protection of individual information. We conduct the first independent evaluation of bias and noise induced by the Bureau's two main disclosure avoidance systems: the TopDown algorithm employed for the 2020 Census and the swapping algorithm implemented for the three previous Censuses. Our…
▽ More
The United States Census Bureau faces a difficult trade-off between the accuracy of Census statistics and the protection of individual information. We conduct the first independent evaluation of bias and noise induced by the Bureau's two main disclosure avoidance systems: the TopDown algorithm employed for the 2020 Census and the swapping algorithm implemented for the three previous Censuses. Our evaluation leverages the Noisy Measure File (NMF) as well as two independent runs of the TopDown algorithm applied to the 2010 decennial Census. We find that the NMF contains too much noise to be directly useful, especially for Hispanic and multiracial populations. TopDown's post-processing dramatically reduces the NMF noise and produces data whose accuracy is similar to that of swapping. While the estimated errors for both TopDown and swapping algorithms are generally no greater than other sources of Census error, they can be relatively substantial for geographies with small total populations.
△ Less
Submitted 10 February, 2024; v1 submitted 12 June, 2023;
originally announced June 2023.
-
Comment: The Essential Role of Policy Evaluation for the 2020 Census Disclosure Avoidance System
Authors:
Christopher T. Kenny,
Shiro Kuriwaki,
Cory McCartan,
Evan T. R. Rosenman,
Tyler Simko,
Kosuke Imai
Abstract:
In "Differential Perspectives: Epistemic Disconnects Surrounding the US Census Bureau's Use of Differential Privacy," boyd and Sarathy argue that empirical evaluations of the Census Disclosure Avoidance System (DAS), including our published analysis, failed to recognize how the benchmark data against which the 2020 DAS was evaluated is never a ground truth of population counts. In this commentary,…
▽ More
In "Differential Perspectives: Epistemic Disconnects Surrounding the US Census Bureau's Use of Differential Privacy," boyd and Sarathy argue that empirical evaluations of the Census Disclosure Avoidance System (DAS), including our published analysis, failed to recognize how the benchmark data against which the 2020 DAS was evaluated is never a ground truth of population counts. In this commentary, we explain why policy evaluation, which was the main goal of our analysis, is still meaningful without access to a perfect ground truth. We also point out that our evaluation leveraged features specific to the decennial Census and redistricting data, such as block-level population invariance under swapping and voter file racial identification, better approximating a comparison with the ground truth. Lastly, we show that accurate statistical predictions of individual race based on the Bayesian Improved Surname Geocoding, while not a violation of differential privacy, substantially increases the disclosure risk of private information the Census Bureau sought to protect. We conclude by arguing that policy makers must confront a key trade-off between data utility and privacy protection, and an epistemic disconnect alone is insufficient to explain disagreements between policy choices.
△ Less
Submitted 15 October, 2022;
originally announced October 2022.
-
Simulated redistricting plans for the analysis and evaluation of redistricting in the United States
Authors:
Cory McCartan,
Christopher T. Kenny,
Tyler Simko,
George Garcia III,
Kevin Wang,
Melissa Wu,
Shiro Kuriwaki,
Kosuke Imai
Abstract:
This article introduces the 50stateSimulations, a collection of simulated congressional districting plans and underlying code developed by the Algorithm-Assisted Redistricting Methodology (ALARM) Project. The 50stateSimulations allow for the evaluation of enacted and other congressional redistricting plans in the United States. While the use of redistricting simulation algorithms has become standa…
▽ More
This article introduces the 50stateSimulations, a collection of simulated congressional districting plans and underlying code developed by the Algorithm-Assisted Redistricting Methodology (ALARM) Project. The 50stateSimulations allow for the evaluation of enacted and other congressional redistricting plans in the United States. While the use of redistricting simulation algorithms has become standard in academic research and court cases, any simulation analysis requires non-trivial efforts to combine multiple data sets, identify state-specific redistricting criteria, implement complex simulation algorithms, and summarize and visualize simulation outputs. We have developed a complete workflow that facilitates this entire process of simulation-based redistricting analysis for the congressional districts of all 50 states. The resulting 50stateSimulations include ensembles of simulated 2020 congressional redistricting plans and necessary replication data. We also provide the underlying code, which serves as a template for customized analyses. All data and code are free and publicly available. This article details the design, creation, and validation of the data.
△ Less
Submitted 20 October, 2022; v1 submitted 21 June, 2022;
originally announced June 2022.
-
The Impact of the U.S. Census Disclosure Avoidance System on Redistricting and Voting Rights Analysis
Authors:
Christopher T. Kenny,
Shiro Kuriwaki,
Cory McCartan,
Evan Rosenman,
Tyler Simko,
Kosuke Imai
Abstract:
The US Census Bureau plans to protect the privacy of 2020 Census respondents through its Disclosure Avoidance System (DAS), which attempts to achieve differential privacy guarantees by adding noise to the Census microdata. By applying redistricting simulation and analysis methods to DAS-protected 2010 Census data, we find that the protected data are not of sufficient quality for redistricting purp…
▽ More
The US Census Bureau plans to protect the privacy of 2020 Census respondents through its Disclosure Avoidance System (DAS), which attempts to achieve differential privacy guarantees by adding noise to the Census microdata. By applying redistricting simulation and analysis methods to DAS-protected 2010 Census data, we find that the protected data are not of sufficient quality for redistricting purposes. We demonstrate that the injected noise makes it impossible for states to accurately comply with the One Person, One Vote principle. Our analysis finds that the DAS-protected data are biased against certain areas, depending on voter turnout and partisan and racial composition, and that these biases lead to large and unpredictable errors in the analysis of partisan and racial gerrymanders. Finally, we show that the DAS algorithm does not universally protect respondent privacy. Based on the names and addresses of registered voters, we are able to predict their race as accurately using the DAS-protected data as when using the 2010 Census data. Despite this, the DAS-protected data can still inaccurately estimate the number of majority-minority districts. We conclude with recommendations for how the Census Bureau should proceed with privacy protection for the 2020 Census.
△ Less
Submitted 20 August, 2021; v1 submitted 28 May, 2021;
originally announced May 2021.
