IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/qualqt/v59y2025i1d10.1007_s11135-024-01937-3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Machine learning-based prediction models for electoral outcomes in India: a comparative analysis of exit polls from 2014–2021

Author

Listed:
  • Anurag Barthwal

    (COER University)

  • Mamta Bhatt

    (Guru Jambheshwar University of Science and Technology)

  • Shwetank Avikal

    (Graphic Era University)

  • Chandra Prakash

    (Graphic Era University)

Abstract

Political researchers and scientists have long sought to forecast the results of upcoming elections in a democratic setup. Prediction approaches have been combined to improve prediction accuracy. In this work, we focus on India, utilizing exit polls spanning the last 8 years to develop machine learning-based prediction models. Exit polls provided by major media agencies for both provincial as well as the union legislative assemblies have been used as inputs to improve prediction accuracy. The training set comprises of the seats projected for the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) and the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) in state and central government elections from 2014 through 2020, providing ample data for training across a wide range of short and long-term trends. The testing set includes seats projected for the UPA and the NDA in 2021, across states including Assam, Kerala, Pondicherry, Tamil Nadu and West Bengal, ensuring validation of the prediction models using undisclosed ‘out of sample’ data. Trained models have been used to provide projected seats for the 2021 legislative assembly elections in the states of Assam, Kerala, Pondicherry, Tamil Nadu and West Bengal. Efficient machine learning approaches viz. support vector regression (SVR), extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost) and deep CNN-LSTM networks have been explored as predictors. The performance of the predictive models is evaluated by utilizing the metrics such as relative error (RE%), normalised mean square error (NRMSE), fractional bias (FB), coefficient of determination (R2) and normalised absolute error (NAE). XGBoost exhibits the lowest R2 value of 0.97, indicating superior fit to the observed data compared to other methods. Additionally, it demonstrates the lowest FB value of −0.03, suggesting minimal prediction bias. Notably, XGBoost also yields the lowest NRMSE, NAE, RE% values (4.11, 2.73 and 0.97% respectively), highlighting its superior accuracy in predicting election outcomes. XGBoost is followed by the deep CNN-LSTM model, while the SVR model exhibits the lowest prediction accuracy among the proposed forecasting methods.

Suggested Citation

  • Anurag Barthwal & Mamta Bhatt & Shwetank Avikal & Chandra Prakash, 2025. "Machine learning-based prediction models for electoral outcomes in India: a comparative analysis of exit polls from 2014–2021," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 59(1), pages 313-338, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:qualqt:v:59:y:2025:i:1:d:10.1007_s11135-024-01937-3
    DOI: 10.1007/s11135-024-01937-3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11135-024-01937-3
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11135-024-01937-3?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. Chen, Yehu & Garnett, Roman & Montgomery, Jacob M., 2023. "Polls, Context, and Time: A Dynamic Hierarchical Bayesian Forecasting Model for US Senate Elections," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 31(1), pages 113-133, January.
    2. Ron Johnston & Todd Hartman & Charles Pattie, 2019. "Predicting general election outcomes: campaigns and changing voter knowledge at the 2017 general election in England," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 53(3), pages 1369-1389, May.
    3. Goodell, John W. & McGee, Richard J. & McGroarty, Frank, 2020. "Election uncertainty, economic policy uncertainty and financial market uncertainty: A prediction market analysis," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 110(C).
    4. Reza Piraei & Seied Hosein Afzali & Majid Niazkar, 2023. "Assessment of XGBoost to Estimate Total Sediment Loads in Rivers," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 37(13), pages 5289-5306, October.
    5. Mongrain, Philippe & Nadeau, Richard & Jérôme, Bruno, 2021. "Playing the synthesizer with Canadian data: Adding polls to a structural forecasting model," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 289-301.
    6. Schratz, Patrick & Muenchow, Jannes & Iturritxa, Eugenia & Richter, Jakob & Brenning, Alexander, 2019. "Hyperparameter tuning and performance assessment of statistical and machine-learning algorithms using spatial data," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 406(C), pages 109-120.
    7. Roberto Cerina & Raymond Duch, 2021. "Polling India via regression and post-stratification of non-probability online samples," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(11), pages 1-34, November.
    8. Lewis-Beck, Michael S. & Tien, Charles, 1999. "Voters as forecasters: a micromodel of election prediction," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 15(2), pages 175-184, April.
    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. Juergen Deppner & Marcelo Cajias, 2024. "Accounting for Spatial Autocorrelation in Algorithm-Driven Hedonic Models: A Spatial Cross-Validation Approach," The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, Springer, vol. 68(2), pages 235-273, February.
    2. Ashton De Silva & Huu Nhan Duong & My Nguyen & Yen Ngoc Nguyen, 2023. "Bank risk in uncertain times: Do credit rationing and revenue diversification matter?," Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 50(7-8), pages 1240-1273, July.
    3. 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.
    4. A. Kamakura, Wagner & Afonso Mazzon, Jose & De Bruyn, Arnaud, 2006. "Modeling voter choice to predict the final outcome of two-stage elections," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 22(4), pages 689-706.
    5. Albrecht, Peter & Kočenda, Evžen, 2024. "Volatility connectedness on the central European forex markets," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 93(C).
    6. Stiers, Dieter & Dassonneville, Ruth, 2018. "Affect versus cognition: Wishful thinking on election day," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 199-215.
    7. Zhou, Yuqin & Liu, Zhenhua & Wu, Shan, 2022. "The global economic policy uncertainty spillover analysis: In the background of COVID-19 pandemic," Research in International Business and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 61(C).
    8. Ivana Lolić & Petar Sorić & Marija Logarušić, 2022. "Economic Policy Uncertainty Index Meets Ensemble Learning," Computational Economics, Springer;Society for Computational Economics, vol. 60(2), pages 401-437, August.
    9. Katarzyna Kopczewska, 2023. "Spatial bootstrapped microeconometrics: Forecasting for out‐of‐sample geo‐locations in big data," Scandinavian Journal of Statistics, Danish Society for Theoretical Statistics;Finnish Statistical Society;Norwegian Statistical Association;Swedish Statistical Association, vol. 50(3), pages 1391-1419, September.
    10. Huq, Tahsin Imtiazul & Hassan, M.Kabir & Houston, Reza, 2022. "The effects of firm political contributions on earmarks and subsequent firm performance," Research in International Business and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 62(C).
    11. Peng‐Fei Dai & John W. Goodell & Luu Duc Toan Huynh & Zhifeng Liu & Shaen Corbet, 2023. "Understanding the transmission of crash risk between cryptocurrency and equity markets," The Financial Review, Eastern Finance Association, vol. 58(3), pages 539-573, August.
    12. Peng, Ya & Zhang, Xueyong, 2024. "Economic policy uncertainty in OFDI host countries and the cross-section of stock returns," Journal of International Money and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 149(C).
    13. Çepni, Oğuzhan & Gül, Selçuk & Hacıhasanoğlu, Yavuz Selim & Yılmaz, Muhammed Hasan, 2020. "Global uncertainties and portfolio flow dynamics of the BRICS countries," Research in International Business and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 54(C).
    14. Wang, Liang & Wang, Qikai & Jiang, Fan, 2023. "Booster or stabilizer? Economic policy uncertainty: New firm-specific measurement and impacts on stock price crash risk," Finance Research Letters, Elsevier, vol. 51(C).
    15. Leiter, Debra & Murr, Andreas & Rascón Ramírez, Ericka & Stegmaier, Mary, 2018. "Social networks and citizen election forecasting: The more friends the better," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 235-248.
    16. Rababa’a, Abdel Razzaq Al & Alomari, Mohammad & Rehman, Mobeen Ur & McMillan, David & Hendawi, Raed, 2022. "Multiscale relationship between economic policy uncertainty and sectoral returns: Implications for portfolio management," Research in International Business and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 61(C).
    17. Cheng, Maoyong & Geng, Hongyan, 2021. "Do local firms employ political activities to respond to political uncertainty?," Journal of Asian Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(C).
    18. Hyeongwoo Kim & Madeline H. Kim, 2021. "U.S. presidential election polls and the economic prospects of China and Mexico," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 53(54), pages 6231-6248, November.
    19. Li, Dongxin & Zhang, Li & Li, Lihong, 2023. "Forecasting stock volatility with economic policy uncertainty: A smooth transition GARCH-MIDAS model," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    20. Lennart Sjöberg, 2009. "Are all crowds equally wise? a comparison of political election forecasts by experts and the public," Journal of Forecasting, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(1), pages 1-18.

    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:spr:qualqt:v:59:y:2025:i:1:d:10.1007_s11135-024-01937-3. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.