This is the followup to the similarly named post on the Data Driven View (part one):
The Axios article herein referred to can be found here:
In part one we dispensed with most of the article leaving the four bullet points below as the most likely place to find any solid proof to support its headline. In this part two, we address these.
Here we take each of the main four bullet points of the Axios article in turn. These four bullet points are given here:
- Regarding Arkansas: 7700 out of how many? Even given an answer to this question, how does what is given in this bullet point support the claim that inaccuracies are on the rise?
- Regarding Virginia: What percent of 39000 removals were inaccurate? It only says that in “some counties” the errors reached 17%. Even given an answer to this question, how does what is given in this bullet point support the claim that inaccuracies are on the rise?
- Regarding Georgia: We need no further research to point out that the third bullet point above makes no quantitative claim of any measure at all of inaccuracy. How many of the 750000 were inaccurate? No response is required other than to agree that mistakes do happen.
- Regarding Texas: No claim of inaccuracy at all is made – only an increase in purges. This is an empty tautology (not proof of anything) as explained below.
So, upon further examination:
The only clear basis implied in the Axios article for “Inaccurate voter purges are on the rise” is simply the fact that voter purges are on the rise. That’s because there is an increase in a perfectly legitimate house keeping activity. That’s logically equivalent to saying that increased access to medical care is the logical basis for saying that “medical malpractice is on the rise” since more people are receiving medical treatment.
The claim made in the headline is that there is an increase in voter purge inaccuracies. All the article establishes is that there is an increase in purges. Of course, an increase in any acitivty will lead to an increase in errors from said activity. This Axios article fails to support (much less prove) the claim made in its headline.