The concept is that accurate data may be available but the map “incorrectly” reports the data through bad programming.
Brief physical analogy:
I have carefully prepared a stack of index cards which accurately report current vote totals in NY state – one card for each county.
You ask me about a particular county, and I take the index card off the top of the deck and tell you that 112,000 votes have been cast in that county. Then I return the card to the top of the deck.
Then you ask me about a different county. Again, I take the index card off the top of the deck and tell you that 112,000 votes have been cast in that county. Then I return the card to the top of the deck.
A third time.
A fourth time.
I always reference the same index card even though I have a full set of accurate data on the cards in my deck. I’m just not looking at the right ones.
In the real world, you wouldn’t make this kind of sloppy mistake. But a computer could easily do this by always referencing the same data field over and over again because it was coded incorrectly. It has good data. It just doesn’t show it successfully.
“ The concept is that accurate data may be available but the map “incorrectly” reports the data through bad programming..”
Obviously.
So you’re suggesting the map is not showing received bad data but changing good data via bad code or an algorithm.