Forecasting Elections - Revision history

192.17.213.108: adding category

2024-11-14T03:38:05Z

adding category

Mwipper: Keys possible question

2008-11-22T18:17:04Z

Keys possible question

Jroberts at 17:24, 22 November 2008

2008-11-22T17:24:47Z

Agonzale at 03:31, 22 November 2008

2008-11-22T03:31:32Z

Agonzale at 03:30, 22 November 2008

2008-11-22T03:30:32Z

Tsorenson at 03:08, 22 November 2008

2008-11-22T03:08:29Z

Tsorenson at 03:07, 22 November 2008

2008-11-22T03:07:21Z

Tsorenson at 02:58, 22 November 2008

2008-11-22T02:58:43Z

Tsorenson at 02:56, 22 November 2008

2008-11-22T02:56:48Z

Akunsak at 02:44, 22 November 2008

2008-11-22T02:44:42Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:38, 14 November 2024
Line 59:		Line 59:

	:''Summary'': This article looks at the 2000 election and what caused the forecasting models to be incorrect and whether the election was simply atypical. The variables that were looked at were incumbent vote share, third term, approval, economic indicators, and economic evaluations. In unweighted these variables, the authors found that by doing so the outcome would be closer. However, in using the models that best predicted the 1956 and 1996 elections the models were found to do a poor job at predicting the 2000 election. The authors use this as evidence that the 2000 election was unusual, not that the models were made improperly. The findings conclude that, on average, when ignoring whether or not an incumbent is in the election, the model preforms better.		:''Summary'': This article looks at the 2000 election and what caused the forecasting models to be incorrect and whether the election was simply atypical. The variables that were looked at were incumbent vote share, third term, approval, economic indicators, and economic evaluations. In unweighted these variables, the authors found that by doing so the outcome would be closer. However, in using the models that best predicted the 1956 and 1996 elections the models were found to do a poor job at predicting the 2000 election. The authors use this as evidence that the 2000 election was unusual, not that the models were made improperly. The findings conclude that, on average, when ignoring whether or not an incumbent is in the election, the model preforms better.
		+
		+	[[Category: PS 240]]

@@ Line 3: / Line 3: @@
 '''Possible Exam Questions'''
-# Nobody has suggested any yet.
+#1 What are the "keys"?
 '''Readings'''

@@ Line 36: / Line 36: @@
 Abramowitz. Time-for-change model.
-:''Summary'':
+:''Summary'':Basically, this article theorizes that the longer one party is in power, the less likely it is to get elected. As such, it predicted an Obama win in 2008.
 Berg, Nelson, and Rietz. Prediction market accuracy.

@@ Line 20: / Line 20: @@
 :''Summary'': This article argues that election markets are better predictors of elections because people have to put something at stake.  The markets do not get effected by the "convention bounce," whereas polls do.  This is because polls measure voter sentiment rather than the likelihood of someone actually getting elected.  Polls are far more volatile than the markets as well--the markets typically hold stable above or below polls for an extended period of time.  With the exception of the 1988 election, the markets preformed better than the polls in the predictions of elections and were closer to the outcome of the election 74% of the time.  This can at least be partially attributed to people who invest in the markets wanting to find the most information possible to make the choice that will generate a profit.
@@ Line 40: / Line 42: @@
 :''Summary'': This article argues that election markets are better predictors of elections because people have to put something at stake.  The markets do not get effected by the "convention bounce," whereas polls do.  This is because polls measure voter sentiment rather than the likelihood of someone actually getting elected.  Polls are far more volatile than the markets as well--the markets typically hold stable above or below polls for an extended period of time.  With the exception of the 1988 election, the markets preformed better than the polls in the predictions of elections and were closer to the outcome of the election 74% of the time.  This can at least be partially attributed to people who invest in the markets wanting to find the most information possible to make the choice that will generate a profit.
 Erikson and Wlezien. Economic indicators.

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:30, 22 November 2008
Line 14:		Line 14:

	:''Summary'': In 2003 California gubernatorial recall election 2,775,785 absentee ballots were cast, which represented roughly 30 percent of the state wide vote. Because the number of absentee voters is growing in California and across the nation, this article found out that the absentee voters, at least in California, are an older and a more educated demographic. The also set out to find out whether absentee voters, have different voting preferences. They found no significant difference between the two groups voting preferences. They found that Republicans were not more likely to vote absentee than Democrats; and that it is just easier, and more convenient.		:''Summary'': In 2003 California gubernatorial recall election 2,775,785 absentee ballots were cast, which represented roughly 30 percent of the state wide vote. Because the number of absentee voters is growing in California and across the nation, this article found out that the absentee voters, at least in California, are an older and a more educated demographic. The also set out to find out whether absentee voters, have different voting preferences. They found no significant difference between the two groups voting preferences. They found that Republicans were not more likely to vote absentee than Democrats; and that it is just easier, and more convenient.
		+
		+	The Goal of this article was to find out if absentee voters were different from those that voted on election day. Several days before the election, absentee voters were surveyed to see why they voted absentee, along with partisan, identification, ideology, demographics and other questions. The results of the experiment showed that absentee votes are not extremely different from the states voters as a whole. Absentee voters were also found to be older and better educated.

	R.S. Erikson and Wlezien, C. (2008). Are Political Markets really Superior to Polls as Election Predictors? Public opinion quarterly, 72, 190-215.		R.S. Erikson and Wlezien, C. (2008). Are Political Markets really Superior to Polls as Election Predictors? Public opinion quarterly, 72, 190-215.

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:07, 22 November 2008
Line 52:		Line 52:
	Sidman, Mak, and Lebo. Non-incumbent elections.		Sidman, Mak, and Lebo. Non-incumbent elections.

−	:''Summary'':	+	:''Summary'': This article looks at the 2000 election and what caused the forecasting models to be incorrect and whether the election was simply atypical. The variables that were looked at were incumbent vote share, third term, approval, economic indicators, and economic evaluations. In unweighted these variables, the authors found that by doing so the outcome would be closer. However, in using the models that best predicted the 1956 and 1996 elections the models were found to do a poor job at predicting the 2000 election. The authors use this as evidence that the 2000 election was unusual, not that the models were made improperly. The findings conclude that, on average, when ignoring whether or not an incumbent is in the election, the model preforms better.

@@ Line 48: / Line 48: @@
 Lichtman. The keys.
-:''Summary'': The keys is a binary forecasting model that does not use any polling data, instead it uses a wide range of indicators. They keys were created in 1981, and have correctly predicted every election from 1860-2008. They keys do not predict the winner of the election, but the popular vote winner. The keys are: Party Mandate, Party Contest, Incumbency, Third Party, Short-Term Economy, Long-Term Economy, Policy Change, Social Unrest, Scandal, Foreign or Military Failure, Foreign or Military Success, Incumbent Charisma/Hero, Challenger Charisma/Hero.
+:''Summary'': The keys is a binary forecasting model that does not use any polling data, instead it uses a wide range of indicators. They keys were created in 1981, and have correctly predicted every election from 1860-2008. They keys do not predict the winner of the election, but the popular vote winner. The keys are: Party Mandate, Party Contest, Incumbency, Third Party, Short-Term Economy, Long-Term Economy, Policy Change, Social Unrest, Scandal, Foreign or Military Failure, Foreign or Military Success, Incumbent Charisma/Hero, Challenger Charisma/Hero.  The economic keys, particularly the short-term economy key, could be argued that it is the most important key for the incumbency.  No incumbent party has won during a recession.
 Sidman, Mak, and Lebo. Non-incumbent elections.
 :''Summary'':

@@ Line 17: / Line 17: @@
 R.S. Erikson and Wlezien, C. (2008). Are Political Markets really Superior to Polls as Election Predictors? Public opinion quarterly, 72, 190-215.
-:''Summary'':
+:''Summary'': This article argues that election markets are better predictors of elections because people have to put something at stake.  The markets do not get effected by the "convention bounce," whereas polls do.  This is because polls measure voter sentiment rather than the likelihood of someone actually getting elected.  Polls are far more volatile than the markets as well--the markets typically hold stable above or below polls for an extended period of time.  With the exception of the 1988 election, the markets preformed better than the polls in the predictions of elections and were closer to the outcome of the election 74% of the time.  This can at least be partially attributed to people who invest in the markets wanting to find the most information possible to make the choice that will generate a profit.
 M.S. Lewis-Beck (2005). Election Forecasting: Principles and Practice. British Journal of Politics & International Relations, 7, 145-164.

@@ Line 39: / Line 39: @@
 Erikson and Wlezien. Economic indicators.
-:''Summary'':
+:''Summary'':This article talks about how the economy is indicative of who will win the election. However, elections are more responsive to short term economic shocks, and so to predict the election early, one must first predict the future economy. This article is an update of a previous model, just showing that this model was correct in 2004, making it correcrt 14 election in a row. A very interesting point of the model is weighing the quarters, such that the further away a quarter is from the election, the less influence it has on the election.
 Lewis-Beck and Tien. Changing the model.