选举前投票中未确定选民的分配

IF 0.5 Q4 COMMUNICATION
S. Kimball
{"title":"选举前投票中未确定选民的分配","authors":"S. Kimball","doi":"10.51698/TRIPODOS.2020.48P69-84","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Is there a way to make pre-election polls more accurate? This paper seeks to test some of the most popular methods of allocating ‘undecided’ voters, based on the underlying theory that the allocation of undecided voters will improve the public’s expectations of election results and a pollster’s claims about accuracy. Polling literature states the most popular methods to incorporate undecided voters include asking a “leaner” question that follows a ballot test question, or allocating the undecided proportionally to their vote preference. Both methods were used in this study, along with a third option in which an even-allocation, or essentially no allocation of undecided voters, took place. The study incorporates n=54 pre-election polls conducted in 20 different states, between October 26 and November 4, 2018, which were used to compare the three allocation methods. This includes an Absolute Error test (deviation between poll results and election results, Mosteller et al., 1949), a Statistical Accuracy test (absolute error compared with the poll’s margin of error, Kimball, 2017), and a Predictive Accuracy test (did the poll predict the actual election winner?). The study found no significant difference between the accuracy of the polls that included an allocation of undecided voters as compared to those that did not (χ2 (2, N=161)=.200, p=.905), suggesting that allocating undecided voters does not detract from, nor add to the reliability and validity of a pre-election poll. \nKeywords: undecided voter, pre-election polling, poll accuracy, allocation of undecided voter, political communication.","PeriodicalId":44263,"journal":{"name":"Tripodos","volume":"1 1","pages":"69-84"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Allocating Undecided Voters in Pre-election Polling\",\"authors\":\"S. Kimball\",\"doi\":\"10.51698/TRIPODOS.2020.48P69-84\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Is there a way to make pre-election polls more accurate? This paper seeks to test some of the most popular methods of allocating ‘undecided’ voters, based on the underlying theory that the allocation of undecided voters will improve the public’s expectations of election results and a pollster’s claims about accuracy. Polling literature states the most popular methods to incorporate undecided voters include asking a “leaner” question that follows a ballot test question, or allocating the undecided proportionally to their vote preference. Both methods were used in this study, along with a third option in which an even-allocation, or essentially no allocation of undecided voters, took place. The study incorporates n=54 pre-election polls conducted in 20 different states, between October 26 and November 4, 2018, which were used to compare the three allocation methods. This includes an Absolute Error test (deviation between poll results and election results, Mosteller et al., 1949), a Statistical Accuracy test (absolute error compared with the poll’s margin of error, Kimball, 2017), and a Predictive Accuracy test (did the poll predict the actual election winner?). The study found no significant difference between the accuracy of the polls that included an allocation of undecided voters as compared to those that did not (χ2 (2, N=161)=.200, p=.905), suggesting that allocating undecided voters does not detract from, nor add to the reliability and validity of a pre-election poll. \\nKeywords: undecided voter, pre-election polling, poll accuracy, allocation of undecided voter, political communication.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44263,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Tripodos\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"69-84\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-12-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Tripodos\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.51698/TRIPODOS.2020.48P69-84\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"COMMUNICATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Tripodos","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.51698/TRIPODOS.2020.48P69-84","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

有没有办法让选前民调更准确?本文试图测试一些最流行的分配“未决定”选民的方法,其基础理论是,未决定选民的分配将提高公众对选举结果的期望,以及民意调查人员对准确性的说法。民意调查文献表明,最流行的方法包括在选票测试问题之后提出一个“精简”的问题,或者根据选民的投票偏好按比例分配未决定的选民。在这项研究中使用了这两种方法,以及第三种选择,即对未决定的选民进行平均分配,或者基本上不进行分配。该研究纳入了2018年10月26日至11月4日在20个不同州进行的n=54次选举前民意调查,用于比较三种分配方法。这包括绝对误差测试(民调结果和选举结果之间的偏差,Mosteller等人,1949)、统计准确性测试(与民调误差范围相比的绝对误差,Kimball,2017)和预测准确性测试(民调预测了实际的选举获胜者吗?)。该研究发现,包括未决定选民分配的民意调查与未包括未决定投票的民意调查的准确性之间没有显著差异(χ2(2,N=161)=.200,p=.905),这表明分配未决定选民不会降低,也不会增加选前民意调查的可靠性和有效性。关键词:未决定选民,选前民调,民调准确性,未决定选民的分配,政治沟通。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Allocating Undecided Voters in Pre-election Polling
Is there a way to make pre-election polls more accurate? This paper seeks to test some of the most popular methods of allocating ‘undecided’ voters, based on the underlying theory that the allocation of undecided voters will improve the public’s expectations of election results and a pollster’s claims about accuracy. Polling literature states the most popular methods to incorporate undecided voters include asking a “leaner” question that follows a ballot test question, or allocating the undecided proportionally to their vote preference. Both methods were used in this study, along with a third option in which an even-allocation, or essentially no allocation of undecided voters, took place. The study incorporates n=54 pre-election polls conducted in 20 different states, between October 26 and November 4, 2018, which were used to compare the three allocation methods. This includes an Absolute Error test (deviation between poll results and election results, Mosteller et al., 1949), a Statistical Accuracy test (absolute error compared with the poll’s margin of error, Kimball, 2017), and a Predictive Accuracy test (did the poll predict the actual election winner?). The study found no significant difference between the accuracy of the polls that included an allocation of undecided voters as compared to those that did not (χ2 (2, N=161)=.200, p=.905), suggesting that allocating undecided voters does not detract from, nor add to the reliability and validity of a pre-election poll. Keywords: undecided voter, pre-election polling, poll accuracy, allocation of undecided voter, political communication.
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
Tripodos
Tripodos COMMUNICATION-
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
7
审稿时长
16 weeks
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信