IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/pscirm/v6y2018i03p571-591_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparing Strategies for Estimating Constituency Opinion from National Survey Samples

Author

Listed:
  • Hanretty, Chris
  • Lauderdale, Benjamin E.
  • Vivyan, Nick

Abstract

Political scientists interested in estimating how public opinion varies by constituency have developed several strategies for supplementing limited constituency survey data with additional sources of information. We present two evaluation studies in the previously unexamined context of British constituency-level opinion: an external validation study of party vote share in the 2010 general election and a cross-validation of opinion toward the European Union. We find that most of the gains over direct estimation come from the inclusion of constituency-level predictors, which are also the easiest source of additional information to incorporate. Individual-level predictors combined with post-stratification particularly improve estimates from unrepresentative samples, and geographic local smoothing can compensate for weak constituency-level predictors. We argue that these findings are likely to be representative of applications of these methods where the number of constituencies is large.

Suggested Citation

  • Hanretty, Chris & Lauderdale, Benjamin E. & Vivyan, Nick, 2018. "Comparing Strategies for Estimating Constituency Opinion from National Survey Samples," Political Science Research and Methods, Cambridge University Press, vol. 6(3), pages 571-591, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:pscirm:v:6:y:2018:i:03:p:571-591_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S2049847015000795/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Eleonora Alabrese & Thiemo René Fetzer & Thiemo Fetzer, 2018. "Who is NOT Voting for Brexit Anymore?," CESifo Working Paper Series 7389, CESifo.
    2. Cerina, Roberto & Duch, Raymond, 2020. "Measuring public opinion via digital footprints," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 987-1002.
    3. Marina Christofoletti & Tânia R. B. Benedetti & Felipe G. Mendes & Humberto M. Carvalho, 2021. "Using Multilevel Regression and Poststratification to Estimate Physical Activity Levels from Health Surveys," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(14), pages 1-16, July.
    4. Hanretty, Chris, 2021. "Forecasting multiparty by-elections using Dirichlet regression," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 37(4), pages 1666-1676.
    5. Lauderdale, Benjamin E. & Bailey, Delia & Blumenau, Jack & Rivers, Douglas, 2020. "Model-based pre-election polling for national and sub-national outcomes in the US and UK," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 399-413.
    6. Levene, Mark & Fenner, Trevor, 2021. "A stochastic differential equation approach to the analysis of the 2017 and 2019 UK general election polls," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 1227-1234.
    7. Saville, Christopher W N & Mann, Robin, 2022. "Cross-level group density interactions on mental health for cultural, but not economic, components of social class," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 296(C).

    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:cup:pscirm:v:6:y:2018:i:03:p:571-591_00. 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: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/ram .

    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.