IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jstats/v7y2024i3p40-684d1427053.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Estimator Comparison for the Prediction of Election Results

Author

Listed:
  • Miltiadis S. Chalikias

    (Department of Accounting and Finance, University of West Attica, 12244 Egaleo, Greece)

  • Georgios X. Papageorgiou

    (Department of Accounting and Finance, University of West Attica, 12244 Egaleo, Greece)

  • Dimitrios P. Zarogiannis

    (Department of Accounting and Finance, University of West Attica, 12244 Egaleo, Greece)

Abstract

Cluster randomized experiments and estimator comparisons are well-documented topics. In this paper, using the datasets of the popular vote in the presidential elections of the United States of America (2012, 2016, 2020), we evaluate the properties (SE, MSE) of three cluster sampling estimators: Ratio estimator, Horvitz–Thompson estimator and the linear regression estimator. While both the Ratio and Horvitz–Thompson estimators are widely used in cluster analysis, we propose a linear regression estimator defined for unequal cluster sizes, which, in many scenarios, performs better than the other two. The main objective of this paper is twofold. Firstly, to indicate which estimator is most suited for predicting the outcome of the popular vote in the United States of America. We do so by applying the single-stage cluster sampling technique to our data. In the first partition, we use the 50 states plus the District of Columbia as primary sampling units, whereas in the second one, we use 3112 counties instead. Secondly, based on the results of the aforementioned procedure, we estimate the number of clusters in a sample for a set standard error while also considering the diminishing returns from increasing the number of clusters in the sample. The linear regression estimator is best in the majority of the examined cases. This type of comparison can also be used for the estimation of any other country’s elections if prior voting results are available.

Suggested Citation

  • Miltiadis S. Chalikias & Georgios X. Papageorgiou & Dimitrios P. Zarogiannis, 2024. "Estimator Comparison for the Prediction of Election Results," Stats, MDPI, vol. 7(3), pages 1-14, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jstats:v:7:y:2024:i:3:p:40-684:d:1427053
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2571-905X/7/3/40/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2571-905X/7/3/40/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Green, Donald P. & Vavreck, Lynn, 2008. "Analysis of Cluster-Randomized Experiments: A Comparison of Alternative Estimation Approaches," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 16(2), pages 138-152, April.
    2. Katz, Jonathan N. & King, Gary, 1999. "A Statistical Model for Multiparty Electoral Data," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 93(1), pages 15-32, March.
    3. Arceneaux, Kevin & Nickerson, David W., 2009. "Modeling Certainty with Clustered Data: A Comparison of Methods," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 17(2), pages 177-190, April.
    4. Esarey, Justin & Menger, Andrew, 2019. "Practical and Effective Approaches to Dealing With Clustered Data," Political Science Research and Methods, Cambridge University Press, vol. 7(3), pages 541-559, July.
    5. Kevin Arceneaux, 2005. "Using Cluster Randomized Field Experiments to Study Voting Behavior," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 601(1), pages 169-179, September.
    6. repec:cup:judgdm:v:13:y:2018:i:4:p:334-344 is not listed on IDEAS
    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. Jeffrey Harden & Thomas Carsey, 2012. "Balancing constituency representation and party responsiveness in the US Senate: the conditioning effect of state ideological heterogeneity," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 150(1), pages 137-154, January.
    2. Aronow Peter M. & Middleton Joel A., 2013. "A Class of Unbiased Estimators of the Average Treatment Effect in Randomized Experiments," Journal of Causal Inference, De Gruyter, vol. 1(1), pages 135-154, June.
    3. Susanne Berger & Nathaniel Graham & Achim Zeileis, 2017. "Various Versatile Variances: An Object-Oriented Implementation of Clustered Covariances in R," Working Papers 2017-12, Faculty of Economics and Statistics, Universität Innsbruck.
    4. Harden Jeffrey J., 2012. "Improving Statistical Inference with Clustered Data," Statistics, Politics and Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 3(1), pages 1-30, January.
    5. Luiz Paulo Fávero & Joseph F. Hair & Rafael de Freitas Souza & Matheus Albergaria & Talles V. Brugni, 2021. "Zero-Inflated Generalized Linear Mixed Models: A Better Way to Understand Data Relationships," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-28, May.
    6. Gerring, John & Thacker, Strom C. & Lu, Yuan & Huang, Wei, 2015. "Does Diversity Impair Human Development? A Multi-Level Test of the Diversity Debit Hypothesis," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 166-188.
    7. Arzheimer, Kai & Evans, Jocelyn, 2010. "Bread and butter à la française: Multiparty forecasts of the French legislative vote (1981-2007)," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 19-31, January.
    8. Alessandro Gavazza & Mattia Nardotto & Tommaso Valletti, 2019. "Internet and Politics: Evidence from U.K. Local Elections and Local Government Policies," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 86(5), pages 2092-2135.
    9. Julia Cage & Edgard Dewitte, 2021. "It Takes Money to Make MPs: Evidence from 150 Years of British Campaign Spending," SciencePo Working papers hal-03384143, HAL.
    10. von Hippel, Paul T. & Bellows, Laura & Osborne, Cynthia & Lincove, Jane Arnold & Mills, Nick, 2016. "Teacher quality differences between teacher preparation programs: How big? How reliable? Which programs are different?," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 31-45.
    11. repec:onb:oenbwp:y::i:169:b:1 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Luís Aguiar-Conraria & Pedro C. Magalhães, 2018. "Procedural Fairness, the Economy, and Support for Political Authorities (Forthcoming at Political Psychology (submitted pre-print version))," NIPE Working Papers 05/2018, NIPE - Universidade do Minho.
    13. T. H. A. Nguyen & T. Laurent & C. Thomas-Agnan & A. Ruiz-Gazen, 2022. "Analyzing the impacts of socio-economic factors on French departmental elections with CoDa methods," Journal of Applied Statistics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 49(5), pages 1235-1251, April.
    14. Backes-Gellner, Uschi & Herz, Holger & Kosfeld, Michael & Oswald, Yvonne, 2021. "Do preferences and biases predict life outcomes? Evidence from education and labor market entry decisions," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 134(C).
    15. Yifeng Liu & Yuan Lai, 2024. "Analyzing jogging activity patterns and adaptation to public health regulation," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 51(3), pages 670-688, March.
    16. Walter Distaso & Rustam Ibragimov & Alexander Semenov & Anton Skrobotov, 2020. "COVID-19: Tail Risk and Predictive Regressions," Papers 2009.02486, arXiv.org, revised Oct 2021.
    17. Heyes, Anthony & Zhu, Mingying, 2019. "Air pollution as a cause of sleeplessness: Social media evidence from a panel of Chinese cities," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 98(C).
    18. Bekkouche, Yasmine & Cagé, Julia & Dewitte, Edgard, 2022. "The heterogeneous price of a vote: Evidence from multiparty systems, 1993–2017," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 206(C).
    19. Christine R. Martell & Robert S. Kravchuk, 2010. "Bond Insurance and Liquidity Provision: Impacts in the Municipal Variable Rate Debt Market, 2008-09," Public Finance Review, , vol. 38(3), pages 378-401, May.
    20. Acuff, Christopher, 2022. "Beyond the City-County Divide: Examining Consolidation Referenda Since 2000," SocArXiv pb7ug, Center for Open Science.
    21. Beetsma, Roel & Debrun, Xavier & Sloof, Randolph, 2022. "The political economy of fiscal transparency and independent fiscal councils," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 145(C).

    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:gam:jstats:v:7:y:2024:i:3:p:40-684:d:1427053. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.