Allocating Undecided Voters in Pre-election Polling
Keywords:political communication, allocation of undecided voter, poll accuracy, pre-election polling, undecided voter
AbstractIs there a way to make pre-election polls more accurate? This paper seeks to test some of the most popular methods of allocating ‘undecided’ voters, based on the underlying theory that the allocation of undecided voters will improve the public’s expectations of election results and a pollster’s claims about accuracy. Polling literature states the most popular methods to incorporate undecided voters include asking a “leaner” question that follows a ballot test question, or allocating the undecided proportionally to their vote preference. Both methods were used in this study, along with a third option in which an even-allocation, or essentially no allocation of undecided voters, took place. The study incorporates n=54 pre-election polls conducted in 20 different states, between October 26 and November 4, 2018, which were used to compare the three allocation methods. This includes an Absolute Error test (deviation between poll results and election results, Mosteller et al., 1949), a Statistical Accuracy test (absolute error compared with the poll’s margin of error, Kimball, 2017), and a Predictive Accuracy test (did the poll predict the actual election winner?). The study found no significant difference between the accuracy of the polls that included an allocation of undecided voters as compared to those that did not (χ2 (2, N=161)=.200, p=.905), suggesting that allocating undecided voters does not detract from, nor add to the reliability and validity of a pre-election poll. Keywords: undecided voter, pre-election polling, poll accuracy, allocation of undecided voter, political communication.
Bon, Joshua J.; Ballard, Timothy, and Baffour, Bernard (2018). “Polling Bias and Undecided Voter Allocations: US Presidential Elections, 2004-2016”. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society), 182(2), pp. 467-493. DOI: <10.1111/rssa.12414>.
Bradburn, Norman M.; Sudman, Seymour; Blair, Ed, and Stocking, Carol (1978). “Question Threat and Response Bias”. Public Opinion Quarterly, 42, pp. 221-234.
Clymer, Adam (2006). “Warren, J. Mitofsky, 71, Innovator Who Devised Exit Poll, Dies”. The New York Times. Retrieved from <https://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/04/obituaries/04mitofsky.html>. CNN (2006). “America Votes 2006 – Exit Polls”. Retrieved from <http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006/pages/results/states/US/H/00/epolls.0.html>.
—. (2018). “Exit Polls 2018”. Retrieved from <https://www.cnn.com/election/2018/exit-polls>.
Crespi, Irving (1988). Pre-election Polling: Sources of Accuracy and Error. Russell Sage Foundation.
Crossley, Archibald M. (1940). “Methods Tested During 1940 Campaign”. Public Opinion Quarterly, 5, pp. 83-86.
Daves, Robert P. and Warden, Sharon (1995). “Methods of Allocating Undecided Respondents to Candidate Choices in Pre-Election Polls”. Presidential Polls and the News Media, pp. 101-119.
Enten, Harry (2018, November 19). “2018 Was a Very Good Year for Polls”. Retrieved from <https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/19/politics/2018-midterm-elections-good-yearpolls/index.html>.
Enten, Harry and Silver, Nate (2017, June 09). “The UK Election Wasn’t That Much of a Shock”. Retrieved from <https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/uk-election-hungparliament/>.
Fenwick, Ian; Wiseman, Frederick; Becker, John F., and Heiman, James R. (1982). “Classifying Undecided Voters in Pre-Election Polls”. The Public Opinion Quarterly, vol. 46, no. 3, p. 383. DOI: <10.1086/268735>.
Flannelly, Kevin J.; Flannelly, Laura T.; and McLeod Jr., Malcolm S. (2000). “Reducing Undecided Voters and Other Sources of Error in Election Surveys”. International Journal of Market Research, vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 1-6. DOI: <10.1177/147078530004200206>.
Hoek, Janet and Gendall, Philip (1997). “Factors Affecting Political Poll Accuracy: An Analysis of Undecided Respondents”. Marketing Bulletin, 8, pp. 1-14.
Martin, Elizabeth A. (2005). “A Review and Proposal for a New Measure of Poll Accuracy”. Public Opinion Quarterly, 69(3), pp. 342-369. DOI: <10.1093/poq/nfi044>.
Mercer, Andrew; Deane, Claudia, and McGeeney, Kyley (2016, November 09). “Why 2016 Election Polls Missed Their Mark”. Retrieved from <https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/09/why-2016-electionpolls-missed-their-mark/>.
Mitofsky, Warren J. (1998). “Review: Was 1996 a Worse Year for Polls Than 1948?” Public Opinion Quarterly, 62(2), p. 230. DOI: <10.1086/297842>.
Mosteller, Frederick [et al.] (1949). “The Pre-election Polls of 1948; Report to the Committee on Analysis of Pre-election Polls and Forecasts”. (Bull. 60) Social Science Research Council.
Patnaik, Subrat (2019, April 09). “Modi’s Alliance to Win Slim Majority in Indian Election, Poll Shows”. Retrieved from <https://www.reuters.com/article/us-india-electionpoll/modis-alliance-to-win-slim-majorityin-indian-election-poll-shows-idUSKCN1RL0U3>.
Perry, Paul (1960). “Election Survey Procedures of the Gallup Poll”. Public Opinion Quarterly, vol. 24, no. 3, p. 531. DOI: <10.1086/266966>.
Saiidi, Uptin (2016, July 04). “Here’s Why the Majority of Brexit Polls Were Wrong”. Retrieved from <https://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/04/whythe-majority-of-brexit-polls-were-wrong.html>.
Visser, Penny S.; Krosnick, Jon A.; Marquette, Jesse, and Curtin, Michael (2000). “Improving Election Forecasting: Allocation of Undecided Respondents, Identification of Likely Voters, and Response Order Effects”. Election Polls, the News Media, and Democracy, pp. 224-260.
Copyright (c) 2020 Tripodos
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Once an article has been approved for publication in Tripodos, the exclusive right to publish the work becomes the property of Blanquerna School of Communication and International Relations of Ramon Llull University. These rights can be granted to a third party with the agreement of the author(s).
Until the articles have been approved for publication, Blanquerna School of Communication and International Relations of Ramon Llull University has no rights over them.
The submission of articles is understood to represent explicit consent to these conditions of publication.