IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ysm/wpaper/amz2643.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Interpreting the Predictive Uncertainty of Elections

Author

Listed:
  • Ray Fair
  • Cowles Discussion
  • Yale Working

Abstract

This paper provides an interpretation of the uncertainty that exists at the beginning of the day of an election as to who will win. It is based on the theory that there are a number of possible conditions of nature that can exist on election day, of which one is drawn. Political betting markets like Intrade provide a way of trying to estimate this uncertainty. It is argued that polling standard errors do not provide estimates of this type of uncertainty. They instead estimate sample-size uncertainty, which can be driven close to zero with a large enough sample. This paper also introduces a ranking assumption concerning dependencies across U.S. states, which puts restrictions on the possible conditions of nature than can exist on election day. The joint hypothesis that the last-day Intrade ranking is correct and the ranking assumption is correct predicts the exact outcomes of the 2004 presidential election and the 2006 Senate election. Although not a test of the ranking assumption, there is evidence that the Intrade traders used the ranking assumption to price contracts in the 2004 presidential election. This was not the case, however, in the 2006 Senate election. Finally, it is shown if the ranking assumption is correct, the two political parties should spend all their money on a few states, which seems consistent with their actual behavior in 2004.

Suggested Citation

  • Ray Fair & Cowles Discussion & Yale Working, 2006. "Interpreting the Predictive Uncertainty of Elections," Yale School of Management Working Papers amz2643, Yale School of Management, revised 01 Aug 2007.
  • Handle: RePEc:ysm:wpaper:amz2643
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://repec.som.yale.edu/icfpub/publications/2643.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Manski, Charles F., 2006. "Interpreting the predictions of prediction markets," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 91(3), pages 425-429, June.
    2. 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.
    3. Souren Soumbatiants & Henry Chappell & Eric Johnson, 2006. "Using state polls to forecast U.S. Presidential election outcomes," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 127(1), pages 207-223, April.
    4. Edward H. Kaplan & Arnold Barnett, 2003. "A New Approach to Estimating the Probability of Winning the Presidency," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 51(1), pages 32-40, February.
    5. Snyder, James M, 1989. "Election Goals and the Allocation of Campaign Resources," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 57(3), pages 637-660, May.
    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. Ray Fair & Cowles Discussion & Yale Working, 2006. "Interpreting the Predictive Uncertainty of Elections," Yale School of Management Working Papers amz2643, Yale School of Management, revised 01 Aug 2007.
    2. Ray C. Fair, 2006. "Interpreting the Predictive Uncertainty of Presidential Elections," Levine's Bibliography 321307000000000427, UCLA Department of Economics.
    3. Ray C. Fair, 2006. "Interpreting the Predictive Uncertainty of Elections," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 1579, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University, revised May 2007.
    4. Ray C. Fair, 2004. "Predicting Electoral College Victory Probabilities from State Probability Data," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 1496, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
    5. Ray Fair, 2004. "Predicting Electoral College Victory Probabilities from State Probability Data," Yale School of Management Working Papers amz2406, Yale School of Management.
    6. Ray Fair, 2004. "Predicting Electoral College Victory Probabilities from State Probability Data," Yale School of Management Working Papers amz2406, Yale School of Management.
    7. Deck, Cary & Hao, Li & Porter, David, 2015. "Do prediction markets aid defenders in a weak-link contest?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 248-258.
    8. M. Keith Chen & Jonathan E. Ingersoll, Jr. & Edward H. Kaplan, 2008. "Modeling a Presidential Prediction Market," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(8), pages 1381-1394, August.
    9. Sebastián Morales & Charles Thraves, 2021. "On the Resource Allocation for Political Campaigns," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 30(11), pages 4140-4159, November.
    10. Agustin Casas & Yarine Fawaz & Andre Trindade, 2016. "Surprise Me If You Can: The Influence Of Newspaper Endorsements In U.S. Presidential Elections," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 54(3), pages 1484-1498, July.
    11. Joyce E. Berg & John Geweke & Thomas A. Rietz, 2010. "Memoirs of an indifferent trader: Estimating forecast distributions from prediction markets," Quantitative Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 1(1), pages 163-186, July.
    12. Rajiv Sethi & Jennifer Wortman Vaughan, 2016. "Belief Aggregation with Automated Market Makers," Computational Economics, Springer;Society for Computational Economics, vol. 48(1), pages 155-178, June.
    13. Sebasti'an Morales & Charles Thraves, 2020. "On the Resource Allocation for Political Campaigns," Papers 2012.02856, arXiv.org.
    14. Siemroth, Christoph, 2014. "Why prediction markets work : The role of information acquisition and endogenous weighting," Working Papers 14-02, University of Mannheim, Department of Economics.
    15. Aner Sela, 2021. "Resource Allocations In Multi-Stage Contests," Working Papers 2105, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Department of Economics.
    16. Subhasish Chowdhury & Dan Kovenock & Roman Sheremeta, 2013. "An experimental investigation of Colonel Blotto games," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 52(3), pages 833-861, April.
    17. 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.
    18. Denter, Philipp & Sisak, Dana, 2015. "Do polls create momentum in political competition?," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 1-14.
    19. Mikuláš Gangur & Miroslav Plevný, 2014. "Tools for Consumer Rights Protection in the Prediction of Electronic Virtual Market and Technological Changes," The AMFITEATRU ECONOMIC journal, Academy of Economic Studies - Bucharest, Romania, vol. 16(36), pages 578-578, May.
    20. Rhode, Paul W. & Snyder, Jr., James M. & Strumpf, Koleman, 2018. "The arsenal of democracy: Production and politics during WWII," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 166(C), pages 145-161.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Election polls; Predictive uncertainty;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:ysm:wpaper:amz2643. 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/smyalus.html .

    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.