Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Fact check: How accurate are police estimates of crowd sizes at political rallies?
1. Summary of the results
Police estimates of crowd sizes tend to be more accurate than estimates from event organizers, particularly when using systematic approaches like the Jacobs Method [1]. This method involves calculating crowd density by determining how many people occupy a given area, with densities ranging from 2.5 to 10 square feet per person [1]. The most accurate estimates typically combine multiple methods, including aerial photography, CCTV, digital counting systems, and public transport data [2].
2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints
- The question of crowd size accuracy goes beyond just police estimates - there are multiple stakeholders and methods involved:
The Crowd Counting Consortium has tracked specific political rally attendance, showing Trump rallies averaging 5,600 attendees in 2024, Biden rallies at 1,300, and Harris rallies at 13,400 since late July 2024 [3]
A stark example of estimation disparity can be seen in the Melbourne COVID "freedom" protest, where:
- Police estimated 20,000 attendees
- Mining magnate Clive Palmer claimed 500,000
- MP Craig Kelly claimed "tens of thousands" [2]
3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement
The original question oversimplifies the complexity of crowd estimation by focusing solely on police estimates. Several parties have vested interests in crowd size reporting:
- Event organizers have a clear incentive to inflate numbers for political or promotional purposes [1]
- Political figures may manipulate numbers for political gain, as seen in the Melbourne protest example where different political figures provided vastly different estimates [2]
- Police and official agencies tend to be more reliable as they:
Have access to well-documented gathering spaces [1]
Use multiple complementary methods [4]
- Have less incentive to inflate numbers [1]
The most accurate approach involves using multiple methods and conservative estimation techniques rather than relying on any single source [3].