过去投票的加权如何提高对投票意向的估计

D. Pennay, S. Misson, D. Neiger, P. Lavrakas
{"title":"过去投票的加权如何提高对投票意向的估计","authors":"D. Pennay, S. Misson, D. Neiger, P. Lavrakas","doi":"10.29115/sp-2023-0001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Polling error for the 2020 US election was the highest in 40 years and no mode of surveying was unambiguously more accurate. This occurred amid several recent polling failures in other countries. Online panels, as the dominant method now used by pollsters to survey voters, are well-positioned to help reduce the level of bias in pre-election polls. Here, we present a case for those pollsters using online panels for pre-election polling to (re)consider using past vote choice (i.e., whom respondents voted for in the previous election) as a weighting variable capable of reducing bias in their election forecasts under the right circumstances. Our data are from an Australian pre-election poll, conducted on a probability-based online panel one month prior to the 2019 Australian federal election. Three different measures of recalled vote choice for the 2016 election were used in weighting the forecast of the 2019 election outcome. These were (1) a short-term measure of recall for the 2016 vote choice obtained three months after the 2016 election, (2) a long-term measure obtained from the same panelists three years after the 2016 election and (3) a hybrid measure with a random half of panelists allocated their short-term past vote measure for 2016 and the remainder their long-term measure. We then examined the impacts on the bias and variance of the resulting estimates of the 2019 voting intentions. Using the short-term measure of the 2016 recalled vote choice in our weighting significantly reduced the bias of the resulting 2019 voting intentions forecast, with an acceptable impact on variance, and produced less biased estimates than when using either of the other two past vote measures. The short-term recall measure also generally resulted in better estimates than a weighting approach that did not include any past vote adjustment. Implications for panel providers are discussed.","PeriodicalId":74893,"journal":{"name":"Survey practice","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How Weighting by Past Vote Can Improve Estimates of Voting Intentions\",\"authors\":\"D. Pennay, S. Misson, D. Neiger, P. Lavrakas\",\"doi\":\"10.29115/sp-2023-0001\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Polling error for the 2020 US election was the highest in 40 years and no mode of surveying was unambiguously more accurate. This occurred amid several recent polling failures in other countries. Online panels, as the dominant method now used by pollsters to survey voters, are well-positioned to help reduce the level of bias in pre-election polls. Here, we present a case for those pollsters using online panels for pre-election polling to (re)consider using past vote choice (i.e., whom respondents voted for in the previous election) as a weighting variable capable of reducing bias in their election forecasts under the right circumstances. Our data are from an Australian pre-election poll, conducted on a probability-based online panel one month prior to the 2019 Australian federal election. Three different measures of recalled vote choice for the 2016 election were used in weighting the forecast of the 2019 election outcome. These were (1) a short-term measure of recall for the 2016 vote choice obtained three months after the 2016 election, (2) a long-term measure obtained from the same panelists three years after the 2016 election and (3) a hybrid measure with a random half of panelists allocated their short-term past vote measure for 2016 and the remainder their long-term measure. We then examined the impacts on the bias and variance of the resulting estimates of the 2019 voting intentions. Using the short-term measure of the 2016 recalled vote choice in our weighting significantly reduced the bias of the resulting 2019 voting intentions forecast, with an acceptable impact on variance, and produced less biased estimates than when using either of the other two past vote measures. The short-term recall measure also generally resulted in better estimates than a weighting approach that did not include any past vote adjustment. Implications for panel providers are discussed.\",\"PeriodicalId\":74893,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Survey practice\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Survey practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.29115/sp-2023-0001\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Survey practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.29115/sp-2023-0001","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

2020年美国大选的民调误差是40年来最高的,没有任何一种调查模式能明确地更准确。这是在其他国家最近几次投票失败的情况下发生的。在线小组是民意调查机构目前调查选民的主要方法,有助于降低选前民意调查中的偏见程度。在这里,我们为那些使用在线小组进行选前民意调查的民意调查人员提供了一个案例,让他们(重新)考虑使用过去的选票选择(即受访者在上次选举中投票给了谁)作为一个加权变量,能够在正确的情况下减少选举预测中的偏差。我们的数据来自2019年澳大利亚联邦大选前一个月在一个基于概率的在线小组上进行的澳大利亚选前民意调查。在对2019年大选结果的预测进行加权时,使用了三种不同的2016年大选召回选票选择指标。这些是(1)在2016年大选三个月后获得的2016年选票选择的短期罢免措施,(2)在2016大选三年后从同一小组成员那里获得的长期措施,以及(3)由随机一半的小组成员分配2016年的短期过去选票措施,其余为长期措施的混合措施。然后,我们研究了对2019年投票意向估计的偏差和方差的影响。在我们的加权中使用2016年召回投票选择的短期指标,显著降低了由此产生的2019年投票意向预测的偏差,对方差的影响是可以接受的,并且产生的偏差估计比使用其他两种过去的投票指标时少。短期召回措施通常也比不包括任何过去投票调整的加权方法产生更好的估计。讨论了对面板供应商的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
How Weighting by Past Vote Can Improve Estimates of Voting Intentions
Polling error for the 2020 US election was the highest in 40 years and no mode of surveying was unambiguously more accurate. This occurred amid several recent polling failures in other countries. Online panels, as the dominant method now used by pollsters to survey voters, are well-positioned to help reduce the level of bias in pre-election polls. Here, we present a case for those pollsters using online panels for pre-election polling to (re)consider using past vote choice (i.e., whom respondents voted for in the previous election) as a weighting variable capable of reducing bias in their election forecasts under the right circumstances. Our data are from an Australian pre-election poll, conducted on a probability-based online panel one month prior to the 2019 Australian federal election. Three different measures of recalled vote choice for the 2016 election were used in weighting the forecast of the 2019 election outcome. These were (1) a short-term measure of recall for the 2016 vote choice obtained three months after the 2016 election, (2) a long-term measure obtained from the same panelists three years after the 2016 election and (3) a hybrid measure with a random half of panelists allocated their short-term past vote measure for 2016 and the remainder their long-term measure. We then examined the impacts on the bias and variance of the resulting estimates of the 2019 voting intentions. Using the short-term measure of the 2016 recalled vote choice in our weighting significantly reduced the bias of the resulting 2019 voting intentions forecast, with an acceptable impact on variance, and produced less biased estimates than when using either of the other two past vote measures. The short-term recall measure also generally resulted in better estimates than a weighting approach that did not include any past vote adjustment. Implications for panel providers are discussed.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信