IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/intfor/v36y2020i4p1407-1419.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A two-stage model to forecast elections in new democracies

Author

Listed:
  • Bunker, Kenneth

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to propose a method to minimize the difference between electoral predictions and electoral results. It builds on findings that stem from established democracies, where most of the research has been carried out, but it focuses on filling the gap for developing nations, which have thus far been neglected by the literature. It proposes a two-stage model in which data are first collected, filtered and weighed according to biases, and then output using Bayesian algorithms and Markov chains. It tests the specification using data stemming from 11 Latin American countries. It shows that the model is remarkably accurate. In comparison to polls, not only does it produce more precise estimates for every election, but it also produces a more accurate forecast for nine out of every ten candidates. The article closes with a discussion on the limitations of the model and a proposal for future research.

Suggested Citation

  • Bunker, Kenneth, 2020. "A two-stage model to forecast elections in new democracies," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 36(4), pages 1407-1419.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:intfor:v:36:y:2020:i:4:p:1407-1419
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ijforecast.2020.02.004
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169207020300212
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ijforecast.2020.02.004?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Feddersen, Timothy J. & Pesendorfer, Wolfgang, 1999. "Abstention in Elections with Asymmetric Information and Diverse Preferences," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 93(2), pages 381-398, June.
    2. Margit Tavits, 2005. "The Development of Stable Party Support: Electoral Dynamics in Post‐Communist Europe," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 49(2), pages 283-298, April.
    3. Shugart, Matthew Soberg, 1995. "The Electoral Cycle and Institutional Sources of Divided Presidential Government," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 89(2), pages 327-343, June.
    4. Drew A. Linzer, 2013. "Dynamic Bayesian Forecasting of Presidential Elections in the States," Journal of the American Statistical Association, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 108(501), pages 124-134, March.
    5. Andrew Leigh & Justin Wolfers, 2006. "Competing Approaches to Forecasting Elections: Economic Models, Opinion Polling and Prediction Markets," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 82(258), pages 325-340, September.
    6. Valentino Larcinese, 2007. "Does political knowledge increase turnout? Evidence from the 1997 British general election," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 131(3), pages 387-411, June.
    7. Armstrong, J. Scott & Green, Kesten C. & Graefe, Andreas, 2015. "Golden rule of forecasting: Be conservative," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 68(8), pages 1717-1731.
    8. Leighton Vaughan Williams & J. James Reade, 2016. "Forecasting Elections," Journal of Forecasting, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 35(4), pages 308-328, July.
    9. Kou, S. G. & Sobel, Michael E., 2004. "Forecasting the Vote: A Theoretical Comparison of Election Markets and Public Opinion Polls," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 12(3), pages 277-295, July.
    10. David Dreyer Lassen, 2005. "The Effect of Information on Voter Turnout: Evidence from a Natural Experiment," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 49(1), pages 103-118, January.
    11. Lauderdale, Benjamin E. & Linzer, Drew, 2015. "Under-performing, over-performing, or just performing? The limitations of fundamentals-based presidential election forecasting," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 965-979.
    12. Richard P. Larrick & Jack B. Soll, 2006. "Erratum--Intuitions About Combining Opinions: Misappreciation of the Averaging Principle," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(2), pages 309-310, February.
    13. Turgeon, Mathieu & Rennó, Lucio, 2012. "Forecasting Brazilian presidential elections: Solving the N problem," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 28(4), pages 804-812.
    14. Rothschild, David, 2015. "Combining forecasts for elections: Accurate, relevant, and timely," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 952-964.
    15. Morton, Rebecca B. & Muller, Daniel & Page, Lionel & Torgler, Benno, 2015. "Exit polls, turnout, and bandwagon voting: Evidence from a natural experiment," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 65-81.
    16. Stoetzer, Lukas F. & Neunhoeffer, Marcel & Gschwend, Thomas & Munzert, Simon & Sternberg, Sebastian, 2019. "Forecasting Elections in Multiparty Systems: A Bayesian Approach Combining Polls and Fundamentals," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 27(2), pages 255-262, April.
    17. Will Jennings & Christopher Wlezien, 2018. "Election polling errors across time and space," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 2(4), pages 276-283, April.
    18. Lock, Kari & Gelman, Andrew, 2010. "Bayesian Combination of State Polls and Election Forecasts," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 18(3), pages 337-348, July.
    19. Graefe, Andreas & Armstrong, J. Scott & Jones, Randall J. & Cuzán, Alfred G., 2014. "Combining forecasts: An application to elections," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 43-54.
    20. Matsusaka, John G, 1995. "Fiscal Effects of the Voter Initiative: Evidence from the Last 30 Years," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 103(3), pages 587-623, June.
    21. Roberts, Kenneth M. & Wibbels, Erik, 1999. "Party Systems and Electoral Volatility in Latin America: A Test of Economic, Institutional, and Structural Explanations," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 93(3), pages 575-590, September.
    22. Michael W. Traugott, 2015. "Métodos alternativos para la estimación de resultados electorales," Estudios Públicos, Centro de Estudios Públicos, vol. 0(137), pages 7-42.
    23. Graefe, Andreas & Küchenhoff, Helmut & Stierle, Veronika & Riedl, Bernhard, 2015. "Limitations of Ensemble Bayesian Model Averaging for forecasting social science problems," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 943-951.
    24. Richard P. Larrick & Jack B. Soll, 2006. "Intuitions About Combining Opinions: Misappreciation of the Averaging Principle," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(1), pages 111-127, January.
    25. Markus, Gregory B. & Converse, Philip E., 1979. "A Dynamic Simultaneous Equation Model of Electoral Choice," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 73(4), pages 1055-1070, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Graefe, Andreas, 2023. "Embrace the differences: Revisiting the PollyVote method of combining forecasts for U.S. presidential elections (2004 to 2020)," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 170-177.
    2. Petropoulos, Fotios & Apiletti, Daniele & Assimakopoulos, Vassilios & Babai, Mohamed Zied & Barrow, Devon K. & Ben Taieb, Souhaib & Bergmeir, Christoph & Bessa, Ricardo J. & Bijak, Jakub & Boylan, Joh, 2022. "Forecasting: theory and practice," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 38(3), pages 705-871.
      • Fotios Petropoulos & Daniele Apiletti & Vassilios Assimakopoulos & Mohamed Zied Babai & Devon K. Barrow & Souhaib Ben Taieb & Christoph Bergmeir & Ricardo J. Bessa & Jakub Bijak & John E. Boylan & Jet, 2020. "Forecasting: theory and practice," Papers 2012.03854, arXiv.org, revised Jan 2022.
    3. Andreas Graefe, 2018. "Predicting elections: Experts, polls, and fundamentals," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 13(4), pages 334-344, July.
    4. repec:cup:judgdm:v:13:y:2018:i:4:p:334-344 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Khan, Urmee & Lieli, Robert P., 2018. "Information flow between prediction markets, polls and media: Evidence from the 2008 presidential primaries," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 34(4), pages 696-710.
    6. Kang, Seungwoo & Oh, Hee-Seok, 2024. "Forecasting South Korea’s presidential election via multiparty dynamic Bayesian modeling," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 124-141.
    7. Oliver Merz & Raphael Flepp & Egon Franck, 2021. "Underestimating randomness: Outcome bias in betting exchange markets," Working Papers 390, University of Zurich, Department of Business Administration (IBW).
    8. Brown, Alasdair & Reade, J. James & Vaughan Williams, Leighton, 2019. "When are prediction market prices most informative?," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 420-428.
    9. Fronzetti Colladon, Andrea, 2020. "Forecasting election results by studying brand importance in online news," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 414-427.
    10. Graefe, Andreas & Armstrong, J. Scott & Jones, Randall J. & Cuzan, Alfred G., 2017. "Assessing the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election Popular Vote Forecasts," MPRA Paper 83282, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    11. von der Gracht, Heiko A. & Hommel, Ulrich & Prokesch, Tobias & Wohlenberg, Holger, 2016. "Testing weighting approaches for forecasting in a Group Wisdom Support System environment," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(10), pages 4081-4094.
    12. Chih‐Yu Chin & Cheng‐Lung Wang, 2021. "A new insight into combining forecasts for elections: The role of social media," Journal of Forecasting, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 40(1), pages 132-143, January.
    13. Munzert, Simon, 2017. "Forecasting elections at the constituency level: A correction–combination procedure," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 467-481.
    14. Armstrong, J. Scott & Green, Kesten C. & Graefe, Andreas, 2015. "Golden rule of forecasting: Be conservative," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 68(8), pages 1717-1731.
    15. repec:cup:judgdm:v:15:y:2020:i:5:p:863-880 is not listed on IDEAS
    16. Mark Richard & Jan Vecer, 2021. "Efficiency Testing of Prediction Markets: Martingale Approach, Likelihood Ratio and Bayes Factor Analysis," Risks, MDPI, vol. 9(2), pages 1-20, February.
    17. Lauderdale, Benjamin E. & Bailey, Delia & Blumenau, Jack & Rivers, Douglas, 2020. "Model-based pre-election polling for national and sub-national outcomes in the US and UK," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 399-413.
    18. Andrew Gelman & Jessica Hullman & Christopher Wlezien & George Elliott Morris, 2020. "Information, incentives, and goals in election forecasts," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 15(5), pages 863-880, September.
    19. Andreas Graefe & Kesten C Green & J Scott Armstrong, 2019. "Accuracy gains from conservative forecasting: Tests using variations of 19 econometric models to predict 154 elections in 10 countries," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(1), pages 1-14, January.
    20. Reade, J. James & Vaughan Williams, Leighton, 2019. "Polls to probabilities: Comparing prediction markets and opinion polls," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 336-350.
    21. Tai, Chung-Ching & Lin, Hung-Wen & Chie, Bin-Tzong & Tung, Chen-Yuan, 2019. "Predicting the failures of prediction markets: A procedure of decision making using classification models," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 297-312.
    22. Joseph McMurray, 2017. "Ideology as Opinion: A Spatial Model of Common-Value Elections," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 9(4), pages 108-140, November.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:intfor:v:36:y:2020:i:4:p:1407-1419. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ijforecast .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.