首个全国性选民问答数据集，揭示美各州信息质量差异并提出改进建议
Do Voters Get the Information They Want? Understanding Authentic Voter FAQs in the US and How to Improve for Informed Electoral Participation
- 构建覆盖全美50个州的选民问答数据集，首次实现国家层面分析
- 识别出12%州为问答质量领先者，8%为落后者，分维度评估信息质量
- 针对不同水平州提出可操作优化策略，助力提升选民知情权
准确信息对民主至关重要，能帮助选民做出明智决策并监督代表。在美国，各州选举委员会（SEC）通常依法提供常见问题解答（FAQ），非营利组织如美国妇女投票联盟（LWV）则补充信息缺口。然而，据我们所知，目前尚无全面覆盖的FAQ资源，也缺乏全国范围的数据分析来识别现状与改进路径。本文首次构建了涵盖所有50个美国州的选民问答数据集，提出针对问题、答案及回答匹配度的问答信息质量（FIQ）评估指标，并基于此分析各州实践水平，识别领先、主流与滞后状态。结果显示，在针对选民的FIQSvoter中，12%州为领先者，8%为落后者；在开发者相关指标中，14%为领先者，12%为落后者。最后，本文提出各层级州可采取的具体改进措施，以优化整体信息生态。
原文摘要 · Abstract (English)
Accurate information is crucial for democracy as it empowers voters to make informed decisions about their representatives and keeping them accountable. In the US, state election commissions (SECs), often required by law, are the primary providers of Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) to voters, and secondary sources like non-profits such as League of Women Voters (LWV) try to complement their information shortfall. However, surprisingly, to the best of our knowledge, there is neither a single source with comprehensive FAQs nor a study analyzing the data at national level to identify current practices and ways to improve the status quo. This paper addresses it by providing the {\bf first dataset on Voter FAQs covering all the US states}. Second, we introduce metrics for FAQ information quality (FIQ) with respect to questions, answers, and answers to corresponding questions. Third, we use FIQs to analyze US FAQs to identify leading, mainstream and lagging content practices and corresponding states. Finally, we identify what states across the spectrum can do to improve FAQ quality and thus, the overall information ecosystem. Across all 50 U.S. states, 12% were identified as leaders and 8% as laggards for FIQS\textsubscript{voter}, while 14% were leaders and 12% laggards for FIQS\textsubscript{developer}.
Thank you to arXiv for use of its open access interoperability. PaperDance 不是 arXiv 官方产品；中文卡片由大模型生成，请以原文为准。