MISSING NONVOTERS AND MISWEIGHTED SAMPLES: EXPLAINING THE 2015 GREAT BRITISH POLLING MISS
Preelection polls for the 2015 UK General Election missed the final result by a considerable margin: underestimating the Conservative Party and overestimating Labour. Analyzing evidence for five theories of why the polls missed using British Election Study (BES) data, we find limited evidence for sy...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Public opinion quarterly 2017-10, Vol.81 (3), p.661-687 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 687 |
---|---|
container_issue | 3 |
container_start_page | 661 |
container_title | Public opinion quarterly |
container_volume | 81 |
creator | MELLON, JONATHAN PROSSER, CHRISTOPHER |
description | Preelection polls for the 2015 UK General Election missed the final result by a considerable margin: underestimating the Conservative Party and overestimating Labour. Analyzing evidence for five theories of why the polls missed using British Election Study (BES) data, we find limited evidence for systematic vote intention misreporting, late swing, systematically different preferences among “don’t knows,” or differential turnout of parties’ supporters. By comparing the BES face-to-face probability sample and BES Internet panel, we show that the online survey’s polling error is primarily caused by undersampling nonvoters, then weighting respondents to represent the general population. Consequently, demographic groups with a low probability of voting are overweighted within the voter subsample. Finally, we show that this mechanism is likely partially responsible for the polls overestimating the Liberal Democrats in 2010, illustrating that this is a longstanding problem. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1093/poq/nfx015 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>jstor</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_jstor_primary_26801742</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><jstor_id>26801742</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>26801742</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-j177t-2e82af7b02712d40629d1bf878511f274974e89acb5ca7a8886aa76c7bed384e3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNotjE1Lw0AUABdRMFYv3oVcPcTue2933-YY2pgG0kRM_LiVzRc0VFuTHvTfW9C5DMxhhLgF-QAypPlh_zX_7L8l6DPhgSYONBGcC09KooAMvl-Kq2ka5AlU6In7dVqWaZ74eZG_FlX8XPpRvvRP9S1Ok1UVL_0yWj9lcXktLnq3m7qbf8_Ey2NcLVZBViTpIsqCAZiPAXYWXc-1RAZslTQYtlD3lq0G6JFVyKqzoWtq3Th21lrjHJuG664lqzqaibu_7zAd9-PmMG4_3PizQWMlsEL6BTEsPGA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Publisher</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype></control><display><type>article</type><title>MISSING NONVOTERS AND MISWEIGHTED SAMPLES: EXPLAINING THE 2015 GREAT BRITISH POLLING MISS</title><source>EBSCOhost Business Source Complete</source><source>JSTOR Archive Collection A-Z Listing</source><source>EBSCOhost Political Science Complete</source><source>Oxford University Press Journals All Titles (1996-Current)</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>MELLON, JONATHAN ; PROSSER, CHRISTOPHER</creator><creatorcontrib>MELLON, JONATHAN ; PROSSER, CHRISTOPHER</creatorcontrib><description>Preelection polls for the 2015 UK General Election missed the final result by a considerable margin: underestimating the Conservative Party and overestimating Labour. Analyzing evidence for five theories of why the polls missed using British Election Study (BES) data, we find limited evidence for systematic vote intention misreporting, late swing, systematically different preferences among “don’t knows,” or differential turnout of parties’ supporters. By comparing the BES face-to-face probability sample and BES Internet panel, we show that the online survey’s polling error is primarily caused by undersampling nonvoters, then weighting respondents to represent the general population. Consequently, demographic groups with a low probability of voting are overweighted within the voter subsample. Finally, we show that this mechanism is likely partially responsible for the polls overestimating the Liberal Democrats in 2010, illustrating that this is a longstanding problem.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0033-362X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1537-5331</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1093/poq/nfx015</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oxford University Press</publisher><ispartof>Public opinion quarterly, 2017-10, Vol.81 (3), p.661-687</ispartof><rights>The Author 2017</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/26801742$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/26801742$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,803,27924,27925,58017,58250</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>MELLON, JONATHAN</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>PROSSER, CHRISTOPHER</creatorcontrib><title>MISSING NONVOTERS AND MISWEIGHTED SAMPLES: EXPLAINING THE 2015 GREAT BRITISH POLLING MISS</title><title>Public opinion quarterly</title><description>Preelection polls for the 2015 UK General Election missed the final result by a considerable margin: underestimating the Conservative Party and overestimating Labour. Analyzing evidence for five theories of why the polls missed using British Election Study (BES) data, we find limited evidence for systematic vote intention misreporting, late swing, systematically different preferences among “don’t knows,” or differential turnout of parties’ supporters. By comparing the BES face-to-face probability sample and BES Internet panel, we show that the online survey’s polling error is primarily caused by undersampling nonvoters, then weighting respondents to represent the general population. Consequently, demographic groups with a low probability of voting are overweighted within the voter subsample. Finally, we show that this mechanism is likely partially responsible for the polls overestimating the Liberal Democrats in 2010, illustrating that this is a longstanding problem.</description><issn>0033-362X</issn><issn>1537-5331</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2017</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid/><recordid>eNotjE1Lw0AUABdRMFYv3oVcPcTue2933-YY2pgG0kRM_LiVzRc0VFuTHvTfW9C5DMxhhLgF-QAypPlh_zX_7L8l6DPhgSYONBGcC09KooAMvl-Kq2ka5AlU6In7dVqWaZ74eZG_FlX8XPpRvvRP9S1Ok1UVL_0yWj9lcXktLnq3m7qbf8_Ey2NcLVZBViTpIsqCAZiPAXYWXc-1RAZslTQYtlD3lq0G6JFVyKqzoWtq3Th21lrjHJuG664lqzqaibu_7zAd9-PmMG4_3PizQWMlsEL6BTEsPGA</recordid><startdate>20171001</startdate><enddate>20171001</enddate><creator>MELLON, JONATHAN</creator><creator>PROSSER, CHRISTOPHER</creator><general>Oxford University Press</general><scope/></search><sort><creationdate>20171001</creationdate><title>MISSING NONVOTERS AND MISWEIGHTED SAMPLES</title><author>MELLON, JONATHAN ; PROSSER, CHRISTOPHER</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-j177t-2e82af7b02712d40629d1bf878511f274974e89acb5ca7a8886aa76c7bed384e3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2017</creationdate><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>MELLON, JONATHAN</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>PROSSER, CHRISTOPHER</creatorcontrib><jtitle>Public opinion quarterly</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>MELLON, JONATHAN</au><au>PROSSER, CHRISTOPHER</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>MISSING NONVOTERS AND MISWEIGHTED SAMPLES: EXPLAINING THE 2015 GREAT BRITISH POLLING MISS</atitle><jtitle>Public opinion quarterly</jtitle><date>2017-10-01</date><risdate>2017</risdate><volume>81</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>661</spage><epage>687</epage><pages>661-687</pages><issn>0033-362X</issn><eissn>1537-5331</eissn><abstract>Preelection polls for the 2015 UK General Election missed the final result by a considerable margin: underestimating the Conservative Party and overestimating Labour. Analyzing evidence for five theories of why the polls missed using British Election Study (BES) data, we find limited evidence for systematic vote intention misreporting, late swing, systematically different preferences among “don’t knows,” or differential turnout of parties’ supporters. By comparing the BES face-to-face probability sample and BES Internet panel, we show that the online survey’s polling error is primarily caused by undersampling nonvoters, then weighting respondents to represent the general population. Consequently, demographic groups with a low probability of voting are overweighted within the voter subsample. Finally, we show that this mechanism is likely partially responsible for the polls overestimating the Liberal Democrats in 2010, illustrating that this is a longstanding problem.</abstract><pub>Oxford University Press</pub><doi>10.1093/poq/nfx015</doi><tpages>27</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0033-362X |
ispartof | Public opinion quarterly, 2017-10, Vol.81 (3), p.661-687 |
issn | 0033-362X 1537-5331 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_jstor_primary_26801742 |
source | EBSCOhost Business Source Complete; JSTOR Archive Collection A-Z Listing; EBSCOhost Political Science Complete; Oxford University Press Journals All Titles (1996-Current); Alma/SFX Local Collection |
title | MISSING NONVOTERS AND MISWEIGHTED SAMPLES: EXPLAINING THE 2015 GREAT BRITISH POLLING MISS |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-23T08%3A40%3A44IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=MISSING%20NONVOTERS%20AND%20MISWEIGHTED%20SAMPLES:%20EXPLAINING%20THE%202015%20GREAT%20BRITISH%20POLLING%20MISS&rft.jtitle=Public%20opinion%20quarterly&rft.au=MELLON,%20JONATHAN&rft.date=2017-10-01&rft.volume=81&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=661&rft.epage=687&rft.pages=661-687&rft.issn=0033-362X&rft.eissn=1537-5331&rft_id=info:doi/10.1093/poq/nfx015&rft_dat=%3Cjstor%3E26801742%3C/jstor%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_jstor_id=26801742&rfr_iscdi=true |