• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

对2020年美国大选的审计显示计票准确。

Audits of the 2020 American election show an accurate vote count.

作者信息

Baltz Samuel, Gonzalez Fernanda, Guo Kevin, Jaffe Jacob, Stewart Charles

机构信息

Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139.

Wellesley College, Wellesley, MA 02481.

出版信息

Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2025 May 20;122(20):e2419633122. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2419633122. Epub 2025 May 13.

DOI:10.1073/pnas.2419633122
PMID:40359045
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12107110/
Abstract

After many elections, the accuracy of the vote count is assessed by retabulating a small percentage of ballots. These audits form one of the richest bodies of evidence regarding electoral legitimacy, which is particularly important in democracies where the accuracy of elections has been prominently questioned. In decentralized democracies such as the United States, however, there is tremendous variation in the conduct and reporting of audits, which are never compiled into one place to facilitate precise analysis of their results. Here, we introduce a nation-scale audit result dataset, which we use to estimate the error rate in vote counting during the 2020 U.S. election. The dataset includes all available postelection tabulation audits, spanning 856 regional governments across 27 states, with 71,702,471 individual votes and a further 1,210,528 ballots, including about 6.2% of all votes cast for Donald Trump and 6.9% of those cast for Joe Biden. We find that election audits shifted the net presidential vote count by only about 0.007%, with similarly minuscule errors across all major types of electoral contests. The construction of a nation-scale election audit dataset represents a novel approach to benchmarking electoral legitimacy and provides particularly direct and comprehensive evidence that Americans' votes were counted correctly in 2020.

摘要

在多次选举后,通过重新统计一小部分选票来评估计票的准确性。这些审计构成了有关选举合法性的最丰富的证据来源之一,这在选举准确性受到显著质疑的民主国家尤为重要。然而,在像美国这样的分权民主国家,审计的实施和报告存在巨大差异,而且从未汇总到一处以便对其结果进行精确分析。在此,我们引入了一个全国范围的审计结果数据集,并用它来估计2020年美国大选计票中的错误率。该数据集包括所有可得的选举后重新计票审计,涵盖27个州的856个地区政府,涉及71,702,471张个人选票以及另外1,210,528张选票,其中包括唐纳德·特朗普所获全部选票的约6.2%以及乔·拜登所获选票的6.9%。我们发现,选举审计使总统净计票数仅变动了约0.007%,在所有主要类型的选举竞争中错误同样极小。构建全国范围的选举审计数据集代表了一种衡量选举合法性的新方法,并提供了特别直接和全面的证据,证明2020年美国民众的选票被正确计票。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/b803/12107110/aab6a8247c9b/pnas.2419633122fig05.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/b803/12107110/77cc4bef52df/pnas.2419633122fig01.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/b803/12107110/fd07a22c8df6/pnas.2419633122fig02.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/b803/12107110/579a4fde8db8/pnas.2419633122fig03.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/b803/12107110/54e7a746f38a/pnas.2419633122fig04.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/b803/12107110/aab6a8247c9b/pnas.2419633122fig05.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/b803/12107110/77cc4bef52df/pnas.2419633122fig01.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/b803/12107110/fd07a22c8df6/pnas.2419633122fig02.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/b803/12107110/579a4fde8db8/pnas.2419633122fig03.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/b803/12107110/54e7a746f38a/pnas.2419633122fig04.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/b803/12107110/aab6a8247c9b/pnas.2419633122fig05.jpg

相似文献

1
Audits of the 2020 American election show an accurate vote count.对2020年美国大选的审计显示计票准确。
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2025 May 20;122(20):e2419633122. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2419633122. Epub 2025 May 13.
2
Cast vote records: A database of ballots from the 2020 U.S. Election.选票记录:2020 年美国大选的选票数据库。
Sci Data. 2024 Nov 28;11(1):1304. doi: 10.1038/s41597-024-04017-1.
3
Forensic analysis of the Turkey 2023 presidential election reveals extreme vote swings in remote areas.对 2023 年土耳其总统选举的法医分析显示,偏远地区的选票出现极端波动。
PLoS One. 2023 Nov 15;18(11):e0293239. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0293239. eCollection 2023.
4
Electoral College bias and the 2020 presidential election.选举团制度的偏见与 2020 年总统大选
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2020 Nov 10;117(45):27940-27944. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2013581117. Epub 2020 Oct 26.
5
280 characters to the White House: predicting 2020 U.S. presidential elections from twitter data.致白宫的280个字符:通过推特数据预测2020年美国总统大选
Comput Math Organ Theory. 2023 Mar 28:1-28. doi: 10.1007/s10588-023-09376-5.
6
Toward a Developmental Science of Politics.迈向政治发展科学。
Monogr Soc Res Child Dev. 2019 Sep;84(3):7-185. doi: 10.1111/mono.12410.
7
Suspicious Minds: Unexpected Election Outcomes, Perceived Electoral Integrity and Satisfaction With Democracy in American Presidential Elections.多疑的选民:美国大选意外结果、感知的选举公正性与对民主的满意度
Polit Res Q. 2023 Dec;76(4):1589-1603. doi: 10.1177/10659129231166679. Epub 2023 Apr 10.
8
When election expectations fail: Polarized perceptions of election legitimacy increase with accumulating evidence of election outcomes and with polarized media.当选举期望落空时:随着选举结果证据的积累和极化媒体的出现,对选举合法性的两极化看法会增加。
PLoS One. 2021 Dec 1;16(12):e0259473. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0259473. eCollection 2021.
9
The Dynamics of Electoral Manipulation and Institutional Trust in Democracies: Election Timing, Blatant Fraud, and the Legitimacy of Governance.民主国家中选举操纵与制度信任的动态:选举时间、公然舞弊与治理的合法性
Public Opin Q. 2024 Jul 11;88(SI):472-494. doi: 10.1093/poq/nfae022. eCollection 2024.
10
The forensics of fraud: Evidence from the 2018 Brazilian presidential election.欺诈的取证:来自2018年巴西总统选举的证据。
Forensic Sci Int Synerg. 2022 Sep 7;5:100286. doi: 10.1016/j.fsisyn.2022.100286. eCollection 2022.

本文引用的文献

1
The Trump Effect? Right-Wing Populism and Distrust in Voting by Mail in Canada.特朗普效应?加拿大的右翼民粹主义与对邮寄投票的不信任
Public Opin Q. 2024 Jul 16;88(SI):781-813. doi: 10.1093/poq/nfae020. eCollection 2024.
2
Post-January 6th deplatforming reduced the reach of misinformation on Twitter.1 月 6 日后的平台封禁行动减少了推特上错误信息的传播范围。
Nature. 2024 Jun;630(8015):132-140. doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-07524-8. Epub 2024 Jun 5.
3
No evidence for systematic voter fraud: A guide to statistical claims about the 2020 election.
没有系统性选民欺诈的证据:关于 2020 年选举的统计声明指南。
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2021 Nov 9;118(45). doi: 10.1073/pnas.2103619118.