Predicting elections: Experts, polls, and fundamentals

This study analyzes the relative accuracy of experts, polls, and the so-called ‘fundamentals’ in predicting the popular vote in the four U.S. presidential elections from 2004 to 2016. Although the majority (62%) of 452 expert forecasts correctly predicted the directional error of polls, the typical...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Andreas Graefe
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Society for Judgment and Decision Making 2018-07-01
Series:Judgment and Decision Making
Subjects:
Online Access:http://journal.sjdm.org/18/18124/jdm18124.pdf
id doaj-634f0aad1ae64acc8cef6157961471cf
record_format Article
spelling doaj-634f0aad1ae64acc8cef6157961471cf2021-05-02T05:23:40ZengSociety for Judgment and Decision MakingJudgment and Decision Making1930-29752018-07-01134334344Predicting elections: Experts, polls, and fundamentalsAndreas GraefeThis study analyzes the relative accuracy of experts, polls, and the so-called ‘fundamentals’ in predicting the popular vote in the four U.S. presidential elections from 2004 to 2016. Although the majority (62%) of 452 expert forecasts correctly predicted the directional error of polls, the typical expert’s vote share forecast was 7% (of the error) less accurate than a simple polling average from the same day. The results further suggest that experts follow the polls and do not sufficiently harness information incorporated in the fundamentals. Combining expert forecasts and polls with a fundamentals-based reference class forecast reduced the error of experts and polls by 24% and 19%, respectively. The findings demonstrate the benefits of combining forecasts and the effectiveness of taking the outside view for debiasing expert judgment.http://journal.sjdm.org/18/18124/jdm18124.pdfelection forecasting expert judgment polls bias reference-class forecastingNAKeywords
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Andreas Graefe
spellingShingle Andreas Graefe
Predicting elections: Experts, polls, and fundamentals
Judgment and Decision Making
election forecasting
expert judgment
polls
bias
reference-class forecastingNAKeywords
author_facet Andreas Graefe
author_sort Andreas Graefe
title Predicting elections: Experts, polls, and fundamentals
title_short Predicting elections: Experts, polls, and fundamentals
title_full Predicting elections: Experts, polls, and fundamentals
title_fullStr Predicting elections: Experts, polls, and fundamentals
title_full_unstemmed Predicting elections: Experts, polls, and fundamentals
title_sort predicting elections: experts, polls, and fundamentals
publisher Society for Judgment and Decision Making
series Judgment and Decision Making
issn 1930-2975
publishDate 2018-07-01
description This study analyzes the relative accuracy of experts, polls, and the so-called ‘fundamentals’ in predicting the popular vote in the four U.S. presidential elections from 2004 to 2016. Although the majority (62%) of 452 expert forecasts correctly predicted the directional error of polls, the typical expert’s vote share forecast was 7% (of the error) less accurate than a simple polling average from the same day. The results further suggest that experts follow the polls and do not sufficiently harness information incorporated in the fundamentals. Combining expert forecasts and polls with a fundamentals-based reference class forecast reduced the error of experts and polls by 24% and 19%, respectively. The findings demonstrate the benefits of combining forecasts and the effectiveness of taking the outside view for debiasing expert judgment.
topic election forecasting
expert judgment
polls
bias
reference-class forecastingNAKeywords
url http://journal.sjdm.org/18/18124/jdm18124.pdf
work_keys_str_mv AT andreasgraefe predictingelectionsexpertspollsandfundamentals
_version_ 1721495062909550592