"56% reported possessing a passport, which is up from 44% when the question was last asked in 2016. Of those who reported having a passport in 2024, 13% stated that it was expired, and 2% indicated that it did not have their legal name. All told, 48% reported they had an unexpired passport with the holder’s legal name."
56% with passports -13% whose passports are expired =43% have unexpired passports.
if the 2% whose passports did not have their current legal name fell entirely within the 13% of the 56% whose passports were expired, then the maximum % who have current passports with legal names is 43% (NOT 48%).
if the 2% fell entirely within the 43% with unexpired passports, the minimum % who have current passports with legal names is 41% (NOT 48%).
The data you offered appears to provide the lower and upper bounds of 41% to 43% for the % of candidate voters who would be able to vote if having an unexpired passport with current legal name were a requirement. Please explain how I'm misunderstanding your data.
I know this is a 16 month old post, but know you will see this, and I'm an election observer and wish to understand, not argue.
It's 13% and 2% of the 56% and not of the total population.
Multiply the 56% by .85 (thereby reducing it by the sum of 13% and 2%) and you get roughly 48%. If the 2% overlaps the 13% by a little bit, it won't significantly change the 48%.
I suppose, having read a lifetime of of surveys and studies, I was expecting/anticipating/assuming the 13% would have been read from the same table of partitioned respondents of the 100% (full pop), rather than being a % of a % (as you pointed out and as was clearly expressed "of the 56%").
-It seems editors of reports and studies often try to avoid "the fractions of fractions" in reports when/if they can simply more fully partition the 100% in a single table. Few readers will do the math in their heads.
And fewer still do it right... ;)
I suspect they chose to report it the way they did (% of %) since it made the 13% and 2% sound bigger than the ~7% and 1% of the full pop. Ever read the classic, "how to lie with statistics"?
The agent at my recent passport appointment (last week), said that even expired passports remain valid as ID and proof of citizenship. That's why they can be provided as proof of both when applying for a job. (It wouldn't be valid for travel outside the US.) The SAVE Act seems to claim otherwise.
How does this math add up?
"56% reported possessing a passport, which is up from 44% when the question was last asked in 2016. Of those who reported having a passport in 2024, 13% stated that it was expired, and 2% indicated that it did not have their legal name. All told, 48% reported they had an unexpired passport with the holder’s legal name."
56% with passports -13% whose passports are expired =43% have unexpired passports.
if the 2% whose passports did not have their current legal name fell entirely within the 13% of the 56% whose passports were expired, then the maximum % who have current passports with legal names is 43% (NOT 48%).
if the 2% fell entirely within the 43% with unexpired passports, the minimum % who have current passports with legal names is 41% (NOT 48%).
The data you offered appears to provide the lower and upper bounds of 41% to 43% for the % of candidate voters who would be able to vote if having an unexpired passport with current legal name were a requirement. Please explain how I'm misunderstanding your data.
I know this is a 16 month old post, but know you will see this, and I'm an election observer and wish to understand, not argue.
It's 13% and 2% of the 56% and not of the total population.
Multiply the 56% by .85 (thereby reducing it by the sum of 13% and 2%) and you get roughly 48%. If the 2% overlaps the 13% by a little bit, it won't significantly change the 48%.
Ah, thanks.
I suppose, having read a lifetime of of surveys and studies, I was expecting/anticipating/assuming the 13% would have been read from the same table of partitioned respondents of the 100% (full pop), rather than being a % of a % (as you pointed out and as was clearly expressed "of the 56%").
-It seems editors of reports and studies often try to avoid "the fractions of fractions" in reports when/if they can simply more fully partition the 100% in a single table. Few readers will do the math in their heads.
And fewer still do it right... ;)
I suspect they chose to report it the way they did (% of %) since it made the 13% and 2% sound bigger than the ~7% and 1% of the full pop. Ever read the classic, "how to lie with statistics"?
The agent at my recent passport appointment (last week), said that even expired passports remain valid as ID and proof of citizenship. That's why they can be provided as proof of both when applying for a job. (It wouldn't be valid for travel outside the US.) The SAVE Act seems to claim otherwise.
US passport or non specific passport?