Never before have so many Americans had such direct and immediate access to government records and primary source documents. The Internet’s rise as a reliable medium between citizens, organizations, and the government offers an unprecedented opportunity for an informed citizenry, and an accountable government.

The FEC is the most trusted – and often the only – source of campaign finance and voter participation data. Through various media, the FEC’s studies and statistics are quickly and widely disseminated. In addition to conventional wire accounts of FEC research, the media often refers interested individuals to the FEC’s website for additional, reliable information. For example:

• In an article titled "The Cutting Edge," the Los Angeles Times encourages readers to visit the FEC website for "registration and voter turnout figures [and] voting statistics . . ." (May 11, 1998)

• A July 27, 1998 article in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution responds to a reader’s question about where to find accurate registration and turnout statistics by suggesting specific pages on the FEC’s website.

The FEC, and its FEC.gov website, have significant name recognition, and people automatically trust its information as authoritative and reliable. The FEC therefore has a responsibility to provide the most accurate and comprehensive information possible. Its misleading methodology regarding voter registration and the national voting age population is troubling. Equally concerning, however, is the abundance of inaccurate, inconsistent, and generally distorted data that is easily accessible on the Commission’s website.

Despite its recent renovation and "streamlin[ing]" of December 23, 1999, the FEC’s website includes a considerable amount of inconsistent information. Few researchers assume that they need to crosscheck information that the FEC posts on its website. While carelessness presumably caused most of the following errors, the result is misleading and often inaccurate data that can substantially skew research’s results.

One source of the FEC’s inconsistency is that multiple pages supposedly provide the same information:

• http://www.fec.gov/votregis/turn/natto.htm ("National Voter Registration and Turnout in Presidential Elections – 1960 to 1992") includes the VAP, "total" registration, turnout, and ratios of registration and turnout to the VAP. This page does not say that the national registration information lacks numerous states’ data.

• http://www.fec.gov/pages/tonote.htm ("Voter Registration and Turnout in Presidential Elections by Year: 1960-1992") offers the VAP, registration, turnout, and registration and turnout as percentages of the VAP for individual states, and as national averages. It does not say that the national registration data lacks several states’ information.

• http://www.fec.gov/pages/htmlto5.htm ("National Voter Turnout in Federal Elections: 1960-1996") includes the VAP, registration, turnout, and turnout as a percentage of the VAP. This is the only page that notes that the national voter registration information provided is missing numerous states, but this page does not include registration as a percentage of the VAP.

The following is a small sampling of the inconsistent and inaccurate data on the FEC’s website. On different pages, the FEC lists:

• Maine’s 1960 VAP as 588,000 and 688,000;

• 1972’s national voter registration as 97,328,541 and 97,283,541;

• Kansas’s 1972 VAP as 2,223,000 (the exact same as that of Kentucky, which directly follows Kansas alphabetically) and 1,539,000;

• Maryland’s 1972 VAP as 2,271,000 and 2,721,000.

The above data and pages are within two mouse "clicks" of FEC.gov’s front page.

The following ratios, which the FEC provides via its website, reflect the FEC’s irresponsible disregard for accuracy:

• In 1960, West Virginia’s registration is 101.4 percent of its VAP;

• In 1964, Minnesota’s registration is 108.3 percent of its VAP; West Virginia’s is 100.6 percent;

• In 1968, Minnesota’s registration is 103.3 percent of its VAP;

• In 1972, Minnesota’s registration is 100.3 percent of its VAP;

• In 1996, Maine’s registration is 106.0 percent of its VAP.

Clearly, these are statistical impossibilities. They could reflect what the FEC refers to as "deadwood," registered voters who have moved, died, or registered under a different name or address. They could also reflect data that was entered inaccurately into FEC spreadsheets. Regardless, the FEC lists the above percentages without explanation or recognition of their invalidity.

Report Index -- Next Section, CONCLUSION

FULL REPORT

TOP OF PAGE