Are all crowds equally wise? A comparison of political election forecasts by experts and the public
Four groups made forecasts of the outcome of the Swedish Parliamentary election in the fall of 2006. They consisted of members of the public, political scientists, journalists writing about domestic politics in Swedish daily newspapers, and journalists who were editing sections of readers’ letters in daily newspapers. They estimated, using a 12-step category scale, which percentage of the votes that they believed 7 parties would get in the election. Data were then obtained on the outcome of the election, and on the two opinions polls closest in time to it. When median forecast were compared across groups, it was found that the group from the public was most successful in forecasting the outcome of the election. This was in spite of the fact that the median error made by individual members of that group was about 50 percent larger than the median error made by members of other groups. The two polls were less efficient than the group from the public and overestimated the span between the incumbent government and the opposition by a factor of 2. The members of the public and journalists showed some wishful thinking in their forecasts. There were large and consistent individual differences in forecasting ability. Men performed better than women, as did those who expressed more interest and knowledge in politics.
|Date of creation:||03 Oct 2006|
|Date of revision:||08 Sep 2008|
|Publication status:||Forthcoming in Journal of Forecasting.|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: The Economic Research Institute, Stockholm School of Economics, P.O. Box 6501, SE 113 83 Stockholm, Sweden|
Phone: +46-(0)8-736 90 00
Fax: +46-(0)8-31 01 57
Web page: http://www.hhs.se/
More information through EDIRC
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Andrew Leigh & Justin Wolfers, 2006.
"Competing Approaches to Forecasting Elections: Economic Models, Opinion Polling and Prediction Markets,"
The Economic Record,
The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 82(258), pages 325-340, 09.
- Andrew Leigh & Justin Wolfers, 2005. "Competing Approaches to Forecasting Elections: Economic Models, Opinion Polling and Prediction Markets," CEPR Discussion Papers 502, Centre for Economic Policy Research, Research School of Economics, Australian National University.
- Leigh, Andrew & Wolfers, Justin, 2006. "Competing Approaches to Forecasting Elections: Economic Models, Opinion Polling and Prediction Markets," CEPR Discussion Papers 5555, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
- Leigh, Andrew & Wolfers, Justin, 2006. "Competing Approaches to Forecasting Elections: Economic Models, Opinion Polling and Prediction Markets," IZA Discussion Papers 1972, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).
- Andrew Leigh & Justin Wolfers, 2006. "Competing Approaches to Forecasting Elections: Economic Models, Opinion Polling and Prediction Markets," NBER Working Papers 12053, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Justin Wolfers & Eric Zitzewitz, 2004. "Prediction Markets," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 18(2), pages 107-126, Spring.
- Wolfers, Justin & Zitzewitz, Eric, 2004. "Prediction Markets," Research Papers 1854, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
- Justin Wolfers & Eric Zitzewitz, 2004. "Prediction Markets," NBER Working Papers 10504, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Justin Wolfers & Eric Zitzewitz, 2004. "Prediction Markets," Discussion Papers 03-025, Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research.
- Lewis-Beck, Michael S. & Skalaban, Andrew, 1989. "Citizen Forecasting: Can Voters See into the Future?," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 19(01), pages 146-153, January.
- 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)
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:hhb:hastba:2006_009. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Helena Lundin)
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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.