A very few days till the 2024 presidential elections. Like many people I have the impression that the news gives only glimpses and highlights from the rallies by both candidates and increasingly the debate becomes personal, or the press publications emphasize certain statements and snippets – perhaps even just headlines and key messages. I happen to read a book right now – it is by Jordan Ellenberg:” How not to be wrong – the power of mathematical thinking”. It highlights that the mathematical methods deliver results that need to be put in proper context. Examples are statistical methods, probability and uncertainty calculations. Analysis of any data and conclusions thereof cannot be meaningful if assumptions and hypothesis made during the collection and assessment are not offered alongside the data itself. One example that can quickly lead to misrepresentation is broad averages over unequal or non-comparable groups of data. Complementing this reading I had the opportunity to listen to various podcasts about topics relevant to this election contest – economic trends, immigration and others. What is interesting that many of today’s phenomena when put into proper historical and economical context can be well explained and understood – there is research and data out there that illuminates the details. They do not directly favor any political direction but can give pointers to potential approaches that could lead to solutions to problems recognized by both parties – practical and logical solutions that can benefit the country at large. Two examples. In a podcast hosted by the NY Times the US immigration history of the last 100 years was discussed – sentiments and laws responding to them over time. Immigration reform in the 80ies leveled the playing field for immigrants from all countries under an established quota but created a side entry path for family member immigration that led to an ever-growing influx of people that did not necessarily meet the general immigration criteria as to the benefit for the country and that was not counted against the agreed upon quotas – in fact at one point exceeded it. Add the rise of illegal immigration over many years and you have the background for a very high immigration now – the events and numbers can be illustrated and spoken too – that would be a discussion anchored on history and data. The second example comes from a fact-check article also by the NY Times. There the tax cuts/roll-back of tax cuts was presented as a $3000 impact for the average American family and in the campaign-discussion portrayed as hurting the middle class. But the average over such a broad range of incomes is misleading and the impact is very uneven. The debt of the country is rising, and some countermeasures are needed – we cannot live on borrowed money! It is desirable for everyone to take a stake in the well-being of the country.
Headlines can stand on numbers out of context. Broad averages and perhaps misleading baselines do not build confidence and do not foster a pragmatic discussion – we understand marketing but what if people loose trust in the brand? Not everyone has the time and interest to dig deeper into information sources that are certainly available. We have good technology to build simple charts and displays and explain them in historical context – I think it would go a long way towards practical solutions. I am sure the community of mathematicians, statisticians, economists and historians is here to help.