IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/rsocxx/v14y2019i1p43-53.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Exploring the accuracy of electoral polls during campaigns in 2016: only bad press?

Author

Listed:
  • Óscar G. Luengo
  • Jaime Peláez-Berbell

Abstract

This article analyses the electoral polls published during the previous days to elections in several countries from a comparative perspective. The countries were Austria, Iceland, Ireland, Moldova, Portugal, Scotland, Serbia, Slovakia, Spain and the United States, where elections took place in 2016. In the study, which included 65 different polls, we controlled several electoral and institutional variables in order to find particular patterns regarding party-system fragmentation, electoral volatility and competitiveness, among others. We developed the following hypothesis: the accuracy of electoral polls published during 2016 depends on several institutional, contextual and electoral features. More in depth, we assumed that the final results are more difficult to predict by electoral polls the greater the party-system fragmentation, competitiveness and electoral volatility are, the earlier before Election Day the polls are conducted, the higher the margin of error declared is, and in parliamentary elections compared to presidential ones.

Suggested Citation

  • Óscar G. Luengo & Jaime Peláez-Berbell, 2019. "Exploring the accuracy of electoral polls during campaigns in 2016: only bad press?," Contemporary Social Science, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(1), pages 43-53, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:rsocxx:v:14:y:2019:i:1:p:43-53
    DOI: 10.1080/21582041.2017.1393553
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/21582041.2017.1393553
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/21582041.2017.1393553?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.

    More about this item

    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:taf:rsocxx:v:14:y:2019:i:1:p:43-53. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/rsoc21 .

    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.