Why I am waiting for the results of the Maricopa county vote audit

The USA is a wonderful and extremely professional country for statistical data and analysis. I have been using economic and population data since 2003 and currently use such tremendous sources as the US Census Bureau, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Bureau of Economic Analysis, and also IPUMS. What I like most is the accuracy of data which is supported by repeated counting of the same parameters and spot check. For example, I use the number of people in a given age group as a potential driver of economic growth. This makes the accurate counting of the age pyramid in the decennial censuses crucial for my quantitative analysis. The census data, however, are prone to numerous coverage, undercounting, miscounting problems due to the size of the task – all population. As a result, the single-year-of-age populations are not reliable. In order to improve the accuracy, several additional (spot check) studies are conducted soon after the census in order to assess the difference between the census and more accurate data gathered with more concentrated resources. I find this spot check fabulous since it finds the difference up to 50% in some strata. Overall, the corrected census data are much more accurate and better fit quantitative analysis. I am able to say so because I personally observed that data scattering between various groups becomes much lower. 

The Maricopa county vote audit is similar to the spot check conducted by the Census Bureau and BLS. A much more accurate counting with much larger resources has to give a more accurate result. This is important to retain the integrity of social sciences in the USA and the whole world. It also promotes trust in the measured results to a new level. From time to time, I watch the live cameras. It makes me more confident in the greatness of the USA.