Forecasting elections from VAA data: What the undecided would vote?

N. Tsapatsoulis, Marilena Agathokleous
{"title":"Forecasting elections from VAA data: What the undecided would vote?","authors":"N. Tsapatsoulis, Marilena Agathokleous","doi":"10.1109/SMAP.2017.8022666","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In many Voting Advice Applications (VAAs) a supplementary question concerning the voting intention of a VAA user is included. The data that are collected through this question can serve a variety of purposes, election forecast being one of them. However, it appears that the majority of VAA users who answer this question select safe choices such as “I prefer not to say” and “I am undecided”. In this study we investigate at what degree we can predict, with the aid of machine learning techniques, the voting intention of the above-mentioned users using as input their choices in the VAA policy statements. The results show an accuracy higher than 60%, supposed that sufficient training examples for each party that participates in the elections exist so as to model each party users. Also, it appears that there is significant difference on the distribution per party for the users who select “I prefer not to say” and those who select “I am undecided”. As a consequence of these findings one would suggest that for effective election forecast it is required to (a) distribute the VAA users who select the previously mentioned choices in the voting intention question in a more sophisticated and intelligent way than that followed in traditional poll methods, and (b) the VAA users who select each one of those choices should be handled separately.","PeriodicalId":441461,"journal":{"name":"2017 12th International Workshop on Semantic and Social Media Adaptation and Personalization (SMAP)","volume":"18 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2017 12th International Workshop on Semantic and Social Media Adaptation and Personalization (SMAP)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/SMAP.2017.8022666","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In many Voting Advice Applications (VAAs) a supplementary question concerning the voting intention of a VAA user is included. The data that are collected through this question can serve a variety of purposes, election forecast being one of them. However, it appears that the majority of VAA users who answer this question select safe choices such as “I prefer not to say” and “I am undecided”. In this study we investigate at what degree we can predict, with the aid of machine learning techniques, the voting intention of the above-mentioned users using as input their choices in the VAA policy statements. The results show an accuracy higher than 60%, supposed that sufficient training examples for each party that participates in the elections exist so as to model each party users. Also, it appears that there is significant difference on the distribution per party for the users who select “I prefer not to say” and those who select “I am undecided”. As a consequence of these findings one would suggest that for effective election forecast it is required to (a) distribute the VAA users who select the previously mentioned choices in the voting intention question in a more sophisticated and intelligent way than that followed in traditional poll methods, and (b) the VAA users who select each one of those choices should be handled separately.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
从VAA数据预测选举:尚未决定的选民会投什么票?
在许多投票建议应用程序(VAAs)中,包含有关VAA用户投票意向的补充问题。通过这个问题收集的数据可以服务于各种目的,选举预测就是其中之一。然而,似乎大多数VAA用户在回答这个问题时都选择了安全的选项,比如“我不想说”和“我还没决定”。在这项研究中,我们研究了在多大程度上,我们可以借助机器学习技术,预测上述用户在VAA政策声明中使用他们的选择作为输入的投票意图。假设每个参与选举的政党都有足够的训练样本,从而对每个政党的用户进行建模,结果表明准确率高于60%。此外,选择“我不想说”和选择“我不确定”的用户的人均分配似乎也存在显著差异。根据这些研究结果,我们建议要有效预测选举,必须(a)以比传统民意调查方法更复杂和智能的方式分配在投票意向问题中选择上述选项的VAA用户,以及(b)应分别处理选择每一个选项的VAA用户。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Towards adaptive brain-computer interfaces: Improving accuracy of detection of event-related potentials High-performance and lightweight real-time deep face emotion recognition Visual pollution localization through crowdsourcing and visual similarity clustering A survey on political event analysis in Twitter Sentiment analysis of social network posts in Slovak language
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1