The Representativity of Election Polls
-
Jelke Bethlehem
Abstract
Election polls are conducted in many countries during election campaigns. Provided such polls are set up and carried out correctly, they can give an accurate indication of the voting intentions of people. However, the last couple of years these polls seem to be less able to predict election results. Examples are the polls for the general election in the UK of 2015, the Brexit referendum in the UK, and the presidential election in the US of 2016. The polls in the UK and the US have all in common that they are either telephone polls or online polls. It is shown in this paper that both type of polls suffer from lack of representativity. The compositions of their samples differ from that of the population. This can have several causes. For telephone polls, problems are mainly caused by increasing nonresponse rates, and lack of proper sampling frames. Most online polls are based on samples from web panels that are recruited by means of self-selection instead of random samples. Such web panels also not representative. The paper analyses the shortcomings of these election polls. The problems are illustrated by describing the polls in the UK and the US in some more detail.
References
Baker, R., S. J. Blumberg, J. M. Brick, M. P. Couper, M. Courtright, J. M. Dennis, D. Dillman, M. R. Frankel, P. Garland, R. M. Groves, C. Kennedy, J. Krosnick, P. J. Lavrakas, S. Lee, M. Link, L. Piekarski, K. Rao, R. K. Thomas and D. Zahs (2010) “Research Synthesis: AAPOR Report on Online Panels,” Public Opinion Quarterly, 74:711–781.10.1093/poq/nfq048Suche in Google Scholar
Bethlehem, J. G. (2009) Applied Survey Methods, a Statistical Approach. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.10.1002/9780470494998Suche in Google Scholar
Bethlehem, J. G. and S. Biffignandi (2012) Handbook of Web Surveys. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.10.1002/9781118121757Suche in Google Scholar
Bethlehem, J. G., F. Cobben and B. Schouten (2011) Handbook of Nonresponse in Household Surveys. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.10.1002/9780470891056Suche in Google Scholar
Bowley, A. L. (1906) “Address to the Economic Science and Statistics Section of the British Association for the Advancement of Science,” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 69:548–557.10.2307/2339344Suche in Google Scholar
Bronzwaer, S. (2012) Infiltranten probeerden de peilingen van Maurice de Hond te manipuleren [Infiltrants attempted to manipulate the polls of Maurice de Hond]. NRC, 13 September 2012.Suche in Google Scholar
Brüggen, E., J. Van Den Brakel, and J. Krosnick. (2016), Establishing the Accuracy of Online Panels for Survey Research. Report 2016|04, Statistics Netherlands, The Hague, The Netherlands.Suche in Google Scholar
Cochran, W. G. (1977) Sampling Techniques, 3rd edition. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.Suche in Google Scholar
Financial Times (2016) General Election Poll Failings Blamed on Poor Sampling. Retrieved from https://www.ft.com/content/c5e27508-ba01-11e5-b151-8e15c9a029fb.Suche in Google Scholar
Horvitz, D. G. and D. J. Thompson (1952) “A Generalization of Sampling Without Replacement from a Finite Universe,” Journal of the American Statistical Association, 47:663–685.10.1080/01621459.1952.10483446Suche in Google Scholar
Kalton, G. (1983) Introduction to Survey Sampling. SAGE University Paper series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, series no. 07-035. Beverly Hills and London: SAGE Publications.Suche in Google Scholar
Kish, L. (1965) Survey Sampling. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.Suche in Google Scholar
Neyman, J. (1934) “On the Two Different Aspects of the Representative Method: The Method of Stratified Sampling and the Method of Purposive Selection,” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 97:558–606.10.2307/2342192Suche in Google Scholar
Pew Research Center (2012) Assessing the Representativeness of Public Opinion Surveys. Retrieved from www.people.pres.org.Suche in Google Scholar
Sturgis, P., N. Baker, M. Callegaro, S. Fisher, J. Green, W. Jennings, J. Kuha, B. Lauderdale and P. Smith (2016) Report of the Inquiry into the 2015 British General Election Opinion Polls. London: Market Research Society and British Polling Council.Suche in Google Scholar
©2017 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
Artikel in diesem Heft
- Frontmatter
- Articles
- The Representativity of Election Polls
- Less Supervision, More Satisficing? Comparing Completely Self-Administered Web-Surveys and Interviews Under Controlled Conditions
- Did Shy Trump Supporters Bias the 2016 Polls? Evidence from a Nationally-representative List Experiment
- Understanding the 2016 US Presidential Polls: The Importance of Hidden Trump Supporters
- Roosevelt Predicted to Win: Revisiting the 1936 Literary Digest Poll
- Predicting the Brexit Vote by Tracking and Classifying Public Opinion Using Twitter Data
- What do we Lose with Online-Only Surveys? Estimating the Bias in Selected Political Variables Due to Online Mode Restriction
Artikel in diesem Heft
- Frontmatter
- Articles
- The Representativity of Election Polls
- Less Supervision, More Satisficing? Comparing Completely Self-Administered Web-Surveys and Interviews Under Controlled Conditions
- Did Shy Trump Supporters Bias the 2016 Polls? Evidence from a Nationally-representative List Experiment
- Understanding the 2016 US Presidential Polls: The Importance of Hidden Trump Supporters
- Roosevelt Predicted to Win: Revisiting the 1936 Literary Digest Poll
- Predicting the Brexit Vote by Tracking and Classifying Public Opinion Using Twitter Data
- What do we Lose with Online-Only Surveys? Estimating the Bias in Selected Political Variables Due to Online Mode Restriction
