民调有多好?1993年至2019年澳大利亚大选预测

IF 1.2 3区 社会学 Q3 POLITICAL SCIENCE Australian Journal of Political Science Pub Date : 2020-09-30 DOI:10.1080/10361146.2020.1825616
M. Goot
{"title":"民调有多好?1993年至2019年澳大利亚大选预测","authors":"M. Goot","doi":"10.1080/10361146.2020.1825616","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT None of the polls predicted the winner of the 2019 Australian election, the first such failure since 1993 when all the polls started reporting a two-party preferred (2PP) vote estimate of the vote share as well as the parties’ first preferences. But the idea that the polls had enjoyed a very good run until 2019 is misleading: from 1993 to 2016, a fifth had predicted the wrong winner. This paper examines the performance of the polls against several measures: the outcome; margins of error; size of the errors; and estimates of the gap between the Liberal-National Party (LNP) and Labor. It shows that about a third of the estimates of the 2PP vote, Labor’s first preferences, and the LNP’s first preferences, involved errors greater than those attributable to sampling error.","PeriodicalId":46913,"journal":{"name":"Australian Journal of Political Science","volume":"56 1","pages":"35 - 55"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2020-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10361146.2020.1825616","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How good are the polls? Australian election predictions, 1993–2019\",\"authors\":\"M. Goot\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/10361146.2020.1825616\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT None of the polls predicted the winner of the 2019 Australian election, the first such failure since 1993 when all the polls started reporting a two-party preferred (2PP) vote estimate of the vote share as well as the parties’ first preferences. But the idea that the polls had enjoyed a very good run until 2019 is misleading: from 1993 to 2016, a fifth had predicted the wrong winner. This paper examines the performance of the polls against several measures: the outcome; margins of error; size of the errors; and estimates of the gap between the Liberal-National Party (LNP) and Labor. It shows that about a third of the estimates of the 2PP vote, Labor’s first preferences, and the LNP’s first preferences, involved errors greater than those attributable to sampling error.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46913,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Australian Journal of Political Science\",\"volume\":\"56 1\",\"pages\":\"35 - 55\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-09-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10361146.2020.1825616\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Australian Journal of Political Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/10361146.2020.1825616\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"POLITICAL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australian Journal of Political Science","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10361146.2020.1825616","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

摘要:没有一项民意调查预测2019年澳大利亚大选的获胜者,这是自1993年以来的首次失败。1993年,所有民意调查都开始报告两党对选票份额的首选(2PP)估计以及两党的首选。但认为民调在2019年之前一直表现良好的想法是误导性的:从1993年到2016年,五分之一的人预测了错误的获胜者。本文从以下几个方面考察了民意调查的表现:结果;误差幅度;误差的大小;以及对自由国家党(LNP)和工党之间差距的估计。研究表明,对2PP选票、工党的第一偏好和LNP的第一偏好的估计中,约有三分之一的误差大于抽样误差。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
How good are the polls? Australian election predictions, 1993–2019
ABSTRACT None of the polls predicted the winner of the 2019 Australian election, the first such failure since 1993 when all the polls started reporting a two-party preferred (2PP) vote estimate of the vote share as well as the parties’ first preferences. But the idea that the polls had enjoyed a very good run until 2019 is misleading: from 1993 to 2016, a fifth had predicted the wrong winner. This paper examines the performance of the polls against several measures: the outcome; margins of error; size of the errors; and estimates of the gap between the Liberal-National Party (LNP) and Labor. It shows that about a third of the estimates of the 2PP vote, Labor’s first preferences, and the LNP’s first preferences, involved errors greater than those attributable to sampling error.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.10
自引率
8.30%
发文量
25
期刊介绍: The Australian Journal of Political Science is the official journal of the Australian Political Studies Association. The editorial team of the Journal includes a range of Australian and overseas specialists covering the major subdisciplines of political science. We publish articles of high quality at the cutting edge of the discipline, characterised by conceptual clarity, methodological rigour, substantive interest, theoretical coherence, broad appeal, originality and insight.
期刊最新文献
Path contingency: advancing a spatial-institutionalist perspective on decision pathways for disaster risk governance ‘The Australian way’: the gendered and racial logics of Scott Morrison’s climate change narratives Religious freedom for whom? How conservative Christianity erodes the religious freedom of those it seeks to discriminate against Free speech, religious freedom and vilification in Australia Bridging the expectation gap: a survey of Australian PhD candidates and supervisors in politics and international relations
×
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