This is typically based on a review of past turnout levels in similar elections, adjusted for judgments about the apparent level of voter interest in the current campaign, the competitiveness of the races and degree of voter mobilization underway. The choice of a turnout threshold is a very important decision because the views of voters and nonvoters are often very different, as was the case in See Appendix C for data on how the choice of a turnout target matters.
Of course, the goal of the model is not to classify every respondent but to produce an accurate aggregation of the vote. But if the distribution of those correctly classified does not match that of the actual electorate, the election forecast will be wrong. Majorities of those in categories 5 and 6 prefer Democratic candidates. As in most elections, the partisan distribution of the predicted vote depends heavily on where the line is drawn on the likely voter scale.
Including more voters usually makes the overall sample more Democratic, especially in off-year elections. That is why judgments about where to apply the cutoff are critical to the accuracy of the method. The same individual survey questions can also be used to create a statistical model that assigns a predicted probability of voting to each respondent, along with coefficients that measure how well each item correlates with turnout.
These coefficients can then be used in other elections with surveys that ask the same questions to create a predicted probability of voting for each respondent, based on the assumption that expressions of interest, past behavior and intent all have the same impact regardless of the election. All response options for each item can be used in the model, or they can be coded as they are in the Perry-Gallup method.
Regardless of the form of the inputs, the result is a distribution, with each respondent assigned a score on a scale corresponding to how likely he or she is to turn out to vote. If someone is classified as a 0.
One potential benefit to this method is that it can use more of the information contained in the survey all of the response categories in each question, rather than just a selected one or two.
This also gives respondents who may have a lower likelihood of voting — whether because of their age, lack of ongoing interest in the election or simply having missed a past election — a possibility of affecting the outcome, since we know that many who score lower on the scale actually do vote.
These respondents will be counted as long as they have a chance of voting that is greater than zero; they are simply given a lower weight in the analysis than others with a higher likelihood of voting. One potential drawback of this method is that it applies a model developed in a previous election to a current election, based on the assumption that the relationships between turnout and the key predictors are the same across elections.
In this study, our models are built using voter participation data from the elections, and the resulting weights are applied retroactively to produce survey estimates of the likely vote. As a result, we cannot test how well these models would perform in future elections.
The likely voter model used by CBS News, which has employed a variation of this method for decades, suggests that such assumptions are reasonable.
Rather, our goal is to explore the differences between probabilistic and deterministic approaches to modeling voter turnout, and learn how much these models are improved when we include information on prior voting behavior drawn from the voter file.
In addition to using the predicted probabilities as a weight, they can also be used with a cutoff. As with the Perry-Gallup scale, the cutoff method would count the top-scoring respondents as likely voters and ignore the others. To build a model comparable to the Perry-Gallup seven-item scale, the same seven questions on voter engagement, past voting behavior, voter intent and knowledge about where to vote were used.
The questions were entered into the model as predictors without combining or collapsing categories. A logistic regression was performed using verified vote from the voter file as the dependent variable.
The regression produces a predicted probability of voting for each respondent and coefficients for each measure. The probabilities are then used in various ways as described below to produce a model of the electorate for forecasting. In subsequent elections, the coefficients derived from these models can be used with the answers from respondents in contemporary surveys to produce a probability of voting for each person.
As with the Perry-Gallup approach, this method assumes that the measures used in the study are equally relevant for distinguishing voters from nonvoters in a variety of elections. The typical decision tree analysis identifies various ways of splitting a dataset into separate paths or branches, based on options for each variable. Unlike classical methods for estimating probabilities such as logistic regression, random forests perform well with large numbers of predictor variables and in the presence of complex interactions.
From to Labour added about ten points to its overall vote share before dropping eight points again in In the graph below we can see that this rise and fall occurred in all the age groups, but the changes are more dramatic amongst younger voters. As the figure below shows, our data suggests that this increase happened relatively evenly across age groups.
Overall, the relationship between age and vote choice in is partly one of continuity — older people were much more likely to vote Conservative and younger people were much more likely to vote Labour — and partly one of common trends — where the level of support changed, as it did for Labour and the Liberal Democrats, it did so in similar ways across age groups. The exact relationship between age and voting behaviour has fluctuated over the last three elections, but in , , and again in , age was one of the most important predictors of how people voted.
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. To find out more about the cookies we use, see our terms and conditions. I accept. Turnout Turnout is with surveys, but random probability survey data represents our best chance of estimating how likely people of different ages were to cast their votes in elections. Party Support We can also use the BES Post-Election Random Probability Survey to examine the relationship between age and vote choice — though again we need to be cautious not to overinterpret small differences between elections when our estimates have uncertainty.
Topics Home. Voter Turnout Data. Voter Turnout Demographics. Precinct Data. Voter Lists. Social Media Useful Election Links.
US Elections Project Blog. Huffington Post Blog.
0コメント