Professional Documents
Culture Documents
article
info
Keywords:
Electoral votes
Public opinion polling
Presidential elections
United States
Weighted average
abstract
The following research note examines the utility of a simpler method of projecting the winners of the various states within the United States Electoral College system. While more
advanced models may be able to center on state-level presidential winners earlier in an
election year, those models, among others, continue to be confounded by states where the
lead is small and/or not clear. This research will demonstrate that over the course of the
elections from 2000 to 2012, a simple weighted average identifies state winners as well as
the more complex models.
2015 International Institute of Forecasters. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
For all the hype, talk, campaigning, and money spent,
the 2012 United States presidential election was a rather
pedestrian affair. Through the lens of the media, every
tamale not properly shucked, every ill-advised tankthemed photo op taken, every Wendys slogan borrowed
on the campaign trail, or every unearthed-turned-viral hidden video was the game change that was going to make
or break the election for one or both major party candidates at some point during the campaign season. Off that
roller coaster ride, however, the fundamentals roughly,
presidential approval and some measure of the state of the
US economy often chart a different, steadier path toward
election day (Abramowitz, 1988). In fact, in 2012, for all the
noise that the various campaign events represented, the
snapshot provided very early by the extant polling at the
state level held very steady throughout.
This was true across a number of forecasting models
that were employed, from very rudimentary polling averages to more complex Bayesian models, some of which
accounted for additional variables beyond the state-level
polling, while reducing the uncertainty of the predictions
through simulations (see Linzer, 2013). Across the array of
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijforecast.2015.01.002
0169-2070/ 2015 International Institute of Forecasters. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
presidential elections of the 21st century. The 2012 campaign saw little movement from the summer onward in the
projected electoral vote count based on state-level polling.
The previous three cycles, on the other hand, ended in
November with different projections from those earlier in
the campaign, in June. The 20002008 cycles had higher
state-level polling volatility over the course of the campaign, but the movement across states was typically in the
same direction and was still limited to just the handful of
competitive states. To the extent that the electoral vote
count fluctuated, it was a function of the small number
of battleground states switching from one candidates column to the other candidates. That type of movement was
absent from the aggregation of 2012 polling. There were
fluctuations across the various survey snapshots taken in
2012, but those changes were muted relative to previous
cycles.
Together, those four elections have provided forecasters with a wide array of conditions under which to project
electoral college outcomes. At their most basic, the four
elections are a reasonable cross-section of presidential
elections during the polarized era, given that, collectively,
they represent an open seat election following a two-term
Democratic incumbent (2000), one with a Republican incumbent (2004), an open seat contest following a termlimited Republican incumbent (2008), and a reelection
campaign involving a Democratic incumbent (2012). Not
only do the four elections account for different types of incumbency and partisan control of the White House over
this period, they also coincide with an era that has seen an
overall proliferation of publicly released polling data.
However, the publicly released polls can fluctuate
wildly over time and among the various polling firms surveying registered and likely voters across the country. At
a bare minimum, simple polling averages and other more
complex methods of aggregation and analysis can smooth
out the crests and troughs in the data to give a clearer, more
stable picture/forecast of where a presidential race stands
at any given point in time during an election year. This paper will establish the rationale behind one of these methods, the graduated weighted polling average (GWPA), and
describe its mechanics, discuss the reasons for inter-model
convergence with the GWPA in 2012, and, finally, examine the effectiveness of averages as a baseline presidential
election projection over the period 20002012.
2. A simple electoral college projection
The graduated weighted polling average (GWPA) works
on the assumption that survey data are an adequate proxy
of the state of the presidential race. Polls account for and
are a reasonable reflection of the oft-cited fundamentals in
the race for the White House, as well as of campaign effects
and other events. Furthermore, the GWPA treats all polling
data as good polling data; that is, good in the sense that
each new survey provides an update on the actual state
of the general election race in a given state at any point
in the campaign. The snapshots vary in their accuracy, but
are more powerful more sound when they are aggregated and averaged over time. On the whole, newer information is more valuable in the battleground states, but also
911
helps to identify which states are the swing states over the
course of any election cycle. For instance, in 2012, Michigan saw the average margin between the candidates widen
over time, making it less of a Romney target in the process.
Conversely, just four years earlier, North Carolina became
more competitive as the campaign continued, putting the
Tar Heel state on the Obama campaign radar.
Thus, any information is valuable to the graduated
weighted polling average. However, the recency of the data
is also of value. The timing serves as the only variable that
is accounted for in the projection model directly. The rest
are subsumed in the actual polling data or left unaccounted
for in the projection.
The polling data are paramount, and are only corrected
for by a decay function that attempts to account parsimoniously for how old the information is. In the context of the
graduated weighted polling average for a state, the candidates levels of support (or vote shares) in the most recent poll are given a full, undiscounted weight, while an
older survey is multiplied by a decay function. That discount is calculated by dividing the day of the year in which
the poll was last in the field by the day of the year at which
the campaign currently is. For example, election day 2012
was on November 6, the 311th day of the year. A poll that
was last in the field in Arizona on January 9 the ninth
day of the election year as a Behavior Research Center
poll was, would be discounted significantly in the average,
due to its age on election day (de Berge, 2012a). That is, it
would have been reduced by a decay function of 0.029 (or
9 / 311). A poll closer to the day of the election like the
early October survey of Arizona by the same firm would
have been discounted in the GWPA at a less severe rate of
reduction. This later Behavior Research Center survey, being last in the field on the 284th day of the election year,
would have retained a little more than 91% of the value of
the candidates vote shares in an election day average of
all weighted surveys (de Berge, 2012b).
This is a very gradual decay function. In addition, the
discount is being utilized as part of an average. The former means that the vote shares in the polls decay very
slowly the older they get, while the latter indicates that,
in the absence of outliers, the aggregation of polling data
over time will translate into a slowly reacting gauge of aggregated public opinion on the race in a state. The slow
reaction time can be viewed as a drawback of the GWPA
approach, as it fails to keep pace with changes in the race.
From another perspective, however, the slow reaction time
can also mean that when a change occurs specifically, a
states average switching from favoring one candidate to
the other it is evidence of a meaningful and lasting change
in the state of the overall race.
These conflicting perspectives highlight the advantages
and disadvantages of the GWPA relative to the extant,
alternative models. The 2012 presidential election cycle
offers one such lens through which to examine the various
prediction models. There are at least two overarching and
interrelated lessons that can be gleaned from 2012.
(1) First of all, despite the fact that a number of models
predicted the winner of the race for the White House
and the distribution of electoral college votes for each
candidate correctly early on, and showed little if any
913
be behind in enough battleground states to put its candidate, George W. Bush, well back in the early Electoral College projections. As had been the case in 2000, though, the
candidate who was trailing in June drew level with but surpassed the opposing candidate as election day approached.
John Kerry clinched the Democratic nomination by
early March, and held a sizable lead over President Bush in
the predicted electoral college vote distribution by the end
of primary season in June. However, this tenuous advantage was built on very narrow polling average margins in
Florida and Ohio. To put it into perspective, the graduated
weighted polling average gave Kerry margins of just 0.05%
in Florida and 0.04% in Ohio at the beginning of June. The
306-232 edge that Kerry thus retained was quite vulnerable, and the 47 electoral votes of Florida and Ohio would
have swung the outcome toward President Bush.
As the November election day approached, though,
Kerrys marginal advantage waned. Florida, Ohio, Wisconsin and Iowa pushed into the Bush column, while only
New Mexico moved toward Kerry and into the Democratic
nominees coalition of states. The movements of these five
states altered the June snapshot of the projected Electoral
College, and amounted to a net shift of 59 electoral college
votes between the candidates from June to November.
The graduated weighted polling averages projected the
winning candidate correctly overall and were within five
electoral college votes of predicting the electoral college
vote distribution correctly as well. This failure on the overall electoral college vote distribution was attributable to
the model incorrectly predicting New Mexico to Kerry and
Wisconsin to Bush. As was the case with the 2000 projection, the GWPA again missed on states that were decided
by less than one percentage point in terms of actual votes
cast. It missed the mark in New Mexico and Wisconsin, but
correctly predicted a narrow Bush win in Iowa. The GWPA
also correctly tabbed Ohio as the tipping point state in the
electoral college vote distribution.
3.3. 2008
As of the first week in June, when Barack Obama
clinched the Democratic nomination, John McCain was
running ahead in the polls and in the GWPA projection,
286-252. That early snapshot of the electoral college vote
distribution may have been a function of the extended
uncertainty surrounding the Democratic nomination, because once Obama was in place as the presumptive Democratic nominee, the picture of the race began to evolve.
As election day approached, the question became not who
would win, but to what extent Obama would win. The
graduated weighted polling average picked up on and reflected this shift in the race, predicting Obama wins in
states that Bush won twice, such as Florida, Nevada, Ohio
and Virginia.
The GWPA correctly predicted an Obama victory, identified Colorado as the tipping point state, and projected an
electoral college vote distribution of 338-200. Again, the
question as election day drew nearer concerned the extent
to which Obama would win in the Electoral College. The
GWPA identified the movement toward Obama, but failed
again in a couple of narrowly decided states, Indiana and
915
References
Abramowitz, A. I. (1988). An improved model for predicting the outcomes
in presidential elections. PS: Political Science and Politics, 21, 843847.
de Berge, E. (2012a). Behavior Research Centers Rocky Mountain
Poll (January 13). Available at http://www.brcpolls.com/12/RMP%
202012-I-01.pdf.
de Berge, E. (2012b). Behavior Research Centers Rocky Mountain Poll (October 13). Available at http://www.brcpolls.com/12/RMP%202012-III01.pdf.
Jackman, S. (2012). Pollster predictions: 91.4% chance Obama wins,
303 or 332 EVs. Huffington Post Pollster. Available at http://
www.huffingtonpost.com/simon-jackman/pollster-predictions_
b_2081013.html.
Jacobson, G. C. (1989). Strategic politicians and the dynamics of U.S.
House elections, 1946-1986. American Political Science Review, 83,
773793.
Linzer, D. (2012). Election day forecast: Obama 332, Romney 206.
Votamatic. Available at http://votamatic.org/election-day-forecastobama-332-romney-206/.
Linzer, D. A. (2013). Dynamic Bayesian forecasting of presidential
elections in the states. Journal of the American Statistical Association,
108, 124134.
Putnam, J. T. (2012). The electoral college map (7/17/12). Frontloading
HQ. Available at http://frontloading.blogspot.com/2012/07/electoralcollege-map-71712.html.
Silver, N. (2008). Obama vs McCain: final pre-election projection. FiveThirtyEight. Available at https://web.archive.org/web/20081106113055/
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/.
Silver, N. (2012). FiveThirtyEights 2012 forecast. FiveThirtyEight. Available
at
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/fivethirtyeights-2012forecast/.
Wang, S. (2012). Todays electoral college map. Princeton Election Consortium. Available at http://election.princeton.edu/electoral-collegemap/.