IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/pra/mprapa/83282.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Assessing the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election Popular Vote Forecasts

Author

Listed:
  • Graefe, Andreas
  • Armstrong, J. Scott
  • Jones, Randall J.
  • Cuzan, Alfred G.

Abstract

The PollyVote uses evidence-based techniques for forecasting the popular vote in presidential elections. The forecasts are derived by averaging existing forecasts generated by six different forecasting methods. In 2016, the PollyVote correctly predicted that Hillary Clinton would win the popular vote. The 1.9 percentage-point error across the last 100 days before the election was lower than the average error for the six component forecasts from which it was calculated (2.3 percentage points). The gains in forecast accuracy from combining are best demonstrated by comparing the error of PollyVote forecasts with the average error of the component methods across the seven elections from 1992 to 2012. The average errors for last 100 days prior to the election were: public opinion polls (2.6 percentage points), econometric models (2.4), betting markets (1.8), and citizens’ expectations (1.2); for expert opinions (1.6) and index models (1.8), data were only available since 2004 and 2008, respectively. The average error for PollyVote forecasts was 1.1, lower than the error for even the most accurate component method.

Suggested Citation

  • Graefe, Andreas & Armstrong, J. Scott & Jones, Randall J. & Cuzan, Alfred G., 2017. "Assessing the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election Popular Vote Forecasts," MPRA Paper 83282, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    • Handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:83282
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/83282/1/MPRA_paper_83282.pdf
    File Function: original version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Richard P. Larrick & Jack B. Soll, 2006. "Erratum--Intuitions About Combining Opinions: Misappreciation of the Averaging Principle," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(2), pages 309-310, February.
    2. Lichtman, Allan J., 2008. "The keys to the white house: An index forecast for 2008," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 301-309.
    3. 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.
    4. Graefe, Andreas & Küchenhoff, Helmut & Stierle, Veronika & Riedl, Bernhard, 2015. "Limitations of Ensemble Bayesian Model Averaging for forecasting social science problems," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 943-951.
    5. Andreas Graefe & J. Scott Armstrong & Alfred G. Cuzán & Randall J. Jones, Jr., 2009. "Combined Forecasts of the 2008 Election: The Pollyvote," Foresight: The International Journal of Applied Forecasting, International Institute of Forecasters, issue 12, pages 41-42, Winter.
    6. Armstrong, J. Scott & Graefe, Andreas, 2011. "Predicting elections from biographical information about candidates: A test of the index method," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 64(7), pages 699-706, July.
    7. Graefe, Andreas, 2015. "Improving forecasts using equally weighted predictors," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 68(8), pages 1792-1799.
    8. Forsythe, Robert & Forrest Nelson & George R. Neumann & Jack Wright, 1992. "Anatomy of an Experimental Political Stock Market," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 82(5), pages 1142-1161, December.
    9. Gelman, Andrew & King, Gary, 1993. "Why Are American Presidential Election Campaign Polls So Variable When Votes Are So Predictable?," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 23(4), pages 409-451, October.
    10. Alfred Cuzan & J. Scott Armstrong & Randall J. Jones, Jr., 2005. "How We Computed the Pollyvote," Foresight: The International Journal of Applied Forecasting, International Institute of Forecasters, issue 1, pages 51-52, June.
    11. Richard P. Larrick & Jack B. Soll, 2006. "Intuitions About Combining Opinions: Misappreciation of the Averaging Principle," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(1), pages 111-127, January.
    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. 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. 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.
    4. von der Gracht, Heiko A. & Hommel, Ulrich & Prokesch, Tobias & Wohlenberg, Holger, 2016. "Testing weighting approaches for forecasting in a Group Wisdom Support System environment," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(10), pages 4081-4094.
    5. Andreas Graefe, 2018. "Predicting elections: Experts, polls, and fundamentals," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 13(4), pages 334-344, July.
    6. repec:cup:judgdm:v:13:y:2018:i:4:p:334-344 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. 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.
    8. Deepa Mishra & Angappa Gunasekaran & Thanos Papadopoulos & Stephen J. Childe, 2018. "Big Data and supply chain management: a review and bibliometric analysis," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 270(1), pages 313-336, November.
    9. Graefe, Andreas, 2019. "Accuracy of German federal election forecasts, 2013 & 2017," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 868-877.
    10. Bunker, Kenneth, 2020. "A two-stage model to forecast elections in new democracies," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 36(4), pages 1407-1419.
    11. Graefe, Andreas, 2015. "Improving forecasts using equally weighted predictors," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 68(8), pages 1792-1799.
    12. Petropoulos, Fotios & Apiletti, Daniele & Assimakopoulos, Vassilios & Babai, Mohamed Zied & Barrow, Devon K. & Ben Taieb, Souhaib & Bergmeir, Christoph & Bessa, Ricardo J. & Bijak, Jakub & Boylan, Joh, 2022. "Forecasting: theory and practice," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 38(3), pages 705-871.
      • Fotios Petropoulos & Daniele Apiletti & Vassilios Assimakopoulos & Mohamed Zied Babai & Devon K. Barrow & Souhaib Ben Taieb & Christoph Bergmeir & Ricardo J. Bessa & Jakub Bijak & John E. Boylan & Jet, 2020. "Forecasting: theory and practice," Papers 2012.03854, arXiv.org, revised Jan 2022.
    13. repec:cup:judgdm:v:8:y:2013:i:2:p:91-105 is not listed on IDEAS
    14. 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.
    15. Julia A. Minson & Jennifer S. Mueller & Richard P. Larrick, 2018. "The Contingent Wisdom of Dyads: When Discussion Enhances vs. Undermines the Accuracy of Collaborative Judgments," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(9), pages 4177-4192, September.
    16. Schlag, Karl H. & Zapechelnyuk, Andriy, 2017. "Dynamic benchmark targeting," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 169(C), pages 145-169.
    17. Wang, Xiaoqian & Hyndman, Rob J. & Li, Feng & Kang, Yanfei, 2023. "Forecast combinations: An over 50-year review," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 39(4), pages 1518-1547.
    18. Irene Scopelliti & Carey K. Morewedge & Erin McCormick & H. Lauren Min & Sophie Lebrecht & Karim S. Kassam, 2015. "Bias Blind Spot: Structure, Measurement, and Consequences," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 61(10), pages 2468-2486, October.
    19. Woike, Jan K. & Hoffrage, Ulrich & Petty, Jeffrey S., 2015. "Picking profitable investments: The success of equal weighting in simulated venture capitalist decision making," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 68(8), pages 1705-1716.
    20. Johannes Müller-Trede & Shoham Choshen-Hillel & Meir Barneron & Ilan Yaniv, 2018. "The Wisdom of Crowds in Matters of Taste," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(4), pages 1779-1803, April.
    21. Healey, Mark P. & Bleda, Mercedes & Querbes, Adrien, 2021. "Opportunity evaluation in teams: A social cognitive model," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 36(4).
    22. Yael Grushka-Cockayne & Kenneth C. Lichtendahl Jr. & Victor Richmond R. Jose & Robert L. Winkler, 2017. "Quantile Evaluation, Sensitivity to Bracketing, and Sharing Business Payoffs," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 65(3), pages 712-728, June.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    election; forecasting; voting;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C53 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric Modeling - - - Forecasting and Prediction Models; Simulation Methods
    • D72 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Political Processes: Rent-seeking, Lobbying, Elections, Legislatures, and Voting Behavior

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:pra:mprapa:83282. 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: Joachim Winter (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/vfmunde.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.