ACCURACY OF VOTE EXPECTATION SURVEYS IN FORECASTING ELECTIONS

被引:68
作者
Graefe, Andreas [1 ]
机构
[1] Ludwig Maximilians Univ Munchen, Dept Commun Sci & Media Res, D-80538 Munich, Germany
关键词
TRIAL-HEAT; POLLS; MODEL; CROWDS; TIME; SEE;
D O I
10.1093/poq/nfu008
中图分类号
G2 [信息与知识传播];
学科分类号
05 ; 0503 ;
摘要
Simple surveys that ask people who they expect to win are among the most accurate methods for forecasting US presidential elections. The majority of respondents correctly predicted the election winner in 193 (89 percent) of 217 surveys conducted from 1932 to 2012. Across the last 100 days prior to the seven elections from 1988 to 2012, vote expectation surveys provided more accurate forecasts of election winners and vote shares than four established methods (vote intention polls, prediction markets, quantitative models, and expert judgment). Gains in accuracy were particularly large compared to polls. On average, the error of expectation-based vote-share forecasts was 51 percent lower than the error of polls published the same day. Compared to prediction markets, vote expectation forecasts reduced the error on average by 6 percent. Vote expectation surveys are inexpensive and easy to conduct, and the results are easy to understand. They provide accurate and stable forecasts and thus make it difficult to frame elections as horse races. Vote expectation surveys should be more strongly utilized in the coverage of election campaigns.
引用
收藏
页码:204 / 232
页数:29
相关论文
共 40 条
[1]   Forecasting in a Polarized Era: The Time for Change Model and the 2012 Presidential Election [J].
Abramowitz, Alan .
PS-POLITICAL SCIENCE & POLITICS, 2012, 45 (04) :618-619
[2]   A meta-analysis of the effects of viewing US presidential debates [J].
Benoit, WL ;
Hansen, GJ ;
Verser, RM .
COMMUNICATION MONOGRAPHS, 2003, 70 (04) :335-350
[3]   Prediction market accuracy in the long run [J].
Berg, Joyce E. ;
Nelson, Forrest D. ;
Rietz, Thomas A. .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF FORECASTING, 2008, 24 (02) :283-298
[4]   Forecasting the Presidential and Congressional Elections of 2012: The Trial-Heat and the Seats-in-Trouble Models [J].
Campbell, James E. .
PS-POLITICAL SCIENCE & POLITICS, 2012, 45 (04) :630-634
[5]   THE CONVENTION BUMP [J].
CAMPBELL, JE ;
CHERRY, LL ;
WINK, KA .
AMERICAN POLITICS QUARTERLY, 1992, 20 (03) :287-307
[6]   Polls and votes - The trial-heat presidential election forecasting model, certainty, and political campaigns [J].
Campbell, JE .
AMERICAN POLITICS QUARTERLY, 1996, 24 (04) :408-433
[7]   Are political markets really superior to polls as election predictors? [J].
Erikson, Robert S. ;
Wlezien, Christopher .
PUBLIC OPINION QUARTERLY, 2008, 72 (02) :190-215
[8]   The Objective and Subjective Economy and the Presidential Vote [J].
Erikson, Robert S. ;
Wlezien, Christopher .
PS-POLITICAL SCIENCE & POLITICS, 2012, 45 (04) :620-624
[9]   Presidential polls as a time series - The case of 1996 [J].
Erikson, RS ;
Wlezien, C .
PUBLIC OPINION QUARTERLY, 1999, 63 (02) :163-177
[10]  
FORSYTHE R, 1992, AM ECON REV, V82, P1142