In an article for Wired, Issie Lapowsky interviews Prof. Charles Stewart about the fairness of the American voting system. Lapowsky explains that Stewart has been tracking voter experiences since 2008, and his research has “become the basis of other election administration research like the studies conducted by the Brennan Center.”
Scott Clement of The Washington Post writes that researchers at the Laboratory for Social Machines have found that while the majority of Twitter conversation concerning the presidential campaign has centered around Donald Trump over the past week and a half, “battlegrounds differed in what particular issues or themes they focused on.”
In an article for The Washington Post, Prof. Charles Stewart III explains that since the 2012 election, voter confidence in the election process has become increasingly polarized. “Democrats are now more confident in an accurate vote count — for their vote or nationwide. Republicans, meanwhile, have changed little,” Prof. Stewart writes.
A study by Prof. David Autor finds a shift in voting patterns in areas of the country impacted by trade with China, report Binyamin Appelbaum, Patricia Cohen and Jack Healy for The New York Times. “This undercurrent of economically driven dissatisfaction,” Autor explains, “works to the benefit of candidates who are noncentrist, and particularly right-wing candidates.”
MIT researchers have found that immigration has been dominating election conversations on Twitter, writes John West in a Washington Post article. “Tweets on immigration soared to almost 60 percent of the election-related Twitter conversation after Donald Trump’s statements about a potential 'softening', his visit to Mexico and then his address on the topic.”
In an article for The Washington Post, Prof. Charles Stewart III examines how American voters have become increasingly concerned about the fairness of the electoral process. “The best hope is for a combination of voices, both partisan and nonpartisan, to remind Americans of the mechanisms in place to ensure that votes are counted fairly.”
Prof. Charles Stewart III writes for The Washington Post that the latest Pew Charitable Trust Elections Performance Index shows there has been improvement in U.S. election administration. Stewart explains that the index gauges “performance across several dimensions of election administration, including the quality of voter registration, ballot casting, and vote counting.”
Writing for Scientific American, Peter Bruce examines the usefulness of statistics in politics, citing a paper by Media Lab Visiting Scientist Yaneer Bar-Yam that examines why Nate Silver’s predictions concerning the Republican primaries were off. The researchers found that “he fell into one of the classic traps of non-statistical thinking: failure to take into account the property of dependence.”
Using data compiled by the Media Lab’s Laboratory for Social Machines concerning Twitter conversation before and after the mass shooting in Orlando, Aaron Blake of The Washington Post shows that political priorities leading up to the presidential election “may depend heavily on world and domestic events that nobody can predict.”
Prof. Charles Stewart III speaks with NPR’s Pam Fessler about voter confidence in the American electoral system. "Ultimately the legitimacy of government rests on the belief among the losers that it was a fair fight," says Stewart.
A new study co-authored by Prof. David Autor examines how manufacturing job losses caused by trade have contributed to the current political discord, reports Nelson Schwartz and Quoctrung Bui for The New York Times. “There are these concentrated pockets of hurt,” explains Autor, “and we’re seeing the political consequences of that.”
Prof. David Autor speaks with NPR’s Chris Arnold about trade deals, the presidential election, and how trade with China has impacted American workers. Instead of criticizing trade deals, Arnold notes that Autor would like the national conversation to “focus on what can be done to help workers who've been displaced by trade.”
Prof. Tavneet Suri writes for The Huffington Post that text messages can improve civic engagement in developing countries, if the electoral system is perceived as fair. “While it’s clear that get-out-the-vote text messages have enormous potential to increase civic engagement and participation, it’s also clear that these messages carry an implicit promise of transparency and openness,” writes Suri.
Terri Rupar reports for The Washington Post that researchers from MIT’s Laboratory for Social Machines have analyzed Twitter conversation surrounding the Supreme Court vacany and found that “people are definitely seeing the vacancy and Obama's nomination as issues for the 2016 election.”
Washington Post reporter Scott Clement compares the results of an analysis performed by MIT researchers of key issues on Twitter in the 2016 presidential race to a national survey. The researchers found that foreign policy and race are key issues on Twitter, while the national survey found that the economy and jobs were top priorities for voters.