IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/intfor/v39y2023i2p956-966.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Aggregating qualitative district-level campaign assessments to forecast election results: Evidence from Japan

Author

Listed:
  • UMEDA, Michio

Abstract

The poll aggregation is conducted in the USA and European democracies for electoral forecasting. However, this has not been the case in Japan because the news media report on electoral campaigns with qualitative assessments rather than poll numbers, although these assessments are based on extensive polling. Our study developed an approach to aggregate qualitative district-level election campaign coverage in Japan, applied the method to forecast the outcomes of the 2017 general election for Japan’s Lower House of the National Diet, and assessed the accuracy of the forecast against the actual results. We integrated the qualitative assessments by using the item response theory, which effectively predicted the electoral results. The method proposed in this paper can be applied to aggregate qualitative assessments by experts in other countries, such as the Cook Political Report in the USA. This would improve the accuracy of election forecasting when combined with existing approaches.

Suggested Citation

  • UMEDA, Michio, 2023. "Aggregating qualitative district-level campaign assessments to forecast election results: Evidence from Japan," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 39(2), pages 956-966.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:intfor:v:39:y:2023:i:2:p:956-966
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ijforecast.2022.03.006
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169207022000462
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ijforecast.2022.03.006?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. Martin, Andrew D. & Quinn, Kevin M., 2002. "Dynamic Ideal Point Estimation via Markov Chain Monte Carlo for the U.S. Supreme Court, 1953–1999," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 10(2), pages 134-153, April.
    2. 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.
    3. Lewis-Beck, Michael S. & Tien, Charles, 2012. "Japanese election forecasting: Classic tests of a hard case," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 28(4), pages 797-803.
    4. Graefe, Andreas, 2019. "Accuracy of German federal election forecasts, 2013 & 2017," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 868-877.
    5. SHOR, BORIS & McCARTY, NOLAN, 2011. "The Ideological Mapping of American Legislatures," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 105(3), pages 530-551, August.
    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. 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.
    3. Brandon Marshall & Michael Peress, 2018. "Dynamic estimation of ideal points for the US Congress," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 176(1), pages 153-174, July.
    4. Devin Caughey & James Dunham & Christopher Warshaw, 2018. "The ideological nationalization of partisan subconstituencies in the American States," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 176(1), pages 133-151, July.
    5. Anna Harvey & Taylor Mattia, 2022. "Does money have a conservative bias? Estimating the causal impact of Citizens United on state legislative preferences," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 191(3), pages 417-441, June.
    6. 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.
    7. Ronald McDonald & Xuxin Mao, 2015. "Forecasting the 2015 General Election with Internet Big Data: An Application of the TRUST Framework," Working Papers 2016_03, Business School - Economics, University of Glasgow.
    8. repec:cup:judgdm:v:15:y:2020:i:5:p:863-880 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Rorie Spill Solberg & Stefanie A. Lindquist, 2006. "Activism, Ideology, and Federalism: Judicial Behavior in Constitutional Challenges Before the Rehnquist Court, 1986–2000," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 3(2), pages 237-261, July.
    10. Xiaohong Yu & Zhaoyang Sun, 2022. "The company they keep: When and why Chinese judges engage in collegiality," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(4), pages 936-1002, December.
    11. Steven Brams & D. Kilgour, 2013. "Kingmakers and leaders in coalition formation," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 41(1), pages 1-18, June.
    12. Arthur Dyevre & Nicolas Lampach, 2021. "Issue attention on international courts: Evidence from the European Court of Justice," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 16(4), pages 793-815, October.
    13. Keren Weinshall‐Margel, 2011. "Attitudinal and Neo‐Institutional Models of Supreme Court Decision Making: An Empirical and Comparative Perspective from Israel," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(3), pages 556-586, September.
    14. Álvaro Bustos & Tonja Jacobi, 2014. "Strategic Judicial Preference Revelation," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 57(1), pages 113-137.
    15. Jule Krüger & Ragnhild Nordås, 2020. "A latent variable approach to measuring wartime sexual violence," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 57(6), pages 728-739, November.
    16. Christian Bjørnskov & Niklas Potrafke, 2013. "The size and scope of government in the US states: does party ideology matter?," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 20(4), pages 687-714, August.
    17. Bohdan M. Pavlyshenko, 2019. "Machine-Learning Models for Sales Time Series Forecasting," Data, MDPI, vol. 4(1), pages 1-11, January.
    18. Justin Wedeking, 2010. "Supreme Court Litigants and Strategic Framing," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 54(3), pages 617-631, July.
    19. Berggren, Niclas & Nilsson, Therese, 2016. "Tolerance in the United States: Does economic freedom transform racial, religious, political and sexual attitudes?," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 45(S), pages 53-70.
    20. 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.
    21. Hasday, Michael J. & Peris, Josep E. & Subiza, Begoña, 2019. "Randomly Selected Representative Committees," QM&ET Working Papers 19-4, University of Alicante, D. Quantitative Methods and Economic Theory.

    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:39:y:2023:i:2:p:956-966. 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.