I am interested in how the polls can actually influence the outcome of an election. We all know that voters like to back horses that they believe can win. Donors prefer to place their money where it is likely to contribute to success. Is there any research on this topic?
@@Spectacurl - not from memory, but I recall this being covered by the 'Economist' specifically, within their regular review of the professional literature and journals.
I feel like the 2020 US Presidential Election would be a more interesting case study than 2016; in the former, unlike in 2016, the national polls were incredibly inaccurate
The National polls were pretty accurate in 2016. The average poll gave Hillary Clinton a four point lead by the time of the election and she won the popular vote by two points. Fairly close, certainly within the margin of error. Where the polls were off were the battleground states like Wisconsin, Michigan Pennsylvania, and Florida. This was also true for 2020.
One thing that they did not discuss at 5:30 is that the trust in the government in those states was very low. With more people losing trust it would make it much harder to know who would go to vote and who would not go. A documentary by Michael Moore named "Fahrenheit 11/9" goas more in depth on that specific topic.
US elections are so messed up. I believe most countries do elections more or less like in my country, Colombia. In the presidential election, anyone who was able to become a candidate can participate. Every citizen votes directly. If anyone gets 50% plus one of the votes that's it. If nobody could achieve that percentage then a second round with the two highest voted candidates takes place. Again, it's one vote per citizen; whomever gets highest number of votes wins. What in the US is called "popular vote", that is in fact the vote that should count.
In portugal we have "the golden parish" its a parish whose polls are consistently similar to the national survey and with a similar demographic composition to the national one. On the eve of the elections, the golden parishes are analyzed again and again.
Maron will win because all other parties and voters from the left to the center will band together to prevent a Le Pen win. It always happens in French politics.
That was usually the way, currently there is a fair bit of animosity towards Macron though - people are banding together to prevent him getting back into power. Le Pen has, publicly at least, moved away from some of the more extreme right wing views she used to side with. It's not a given thing either way
"Negative" voting voting Is devilishly hard to poll, because the effect is difficult to quantify.... A positive vote is a simple binomial, while the negative has a third option, whether to simply withhold completely. In 2016, with *both* candidates 'negative' ratings so high, it's a wonder the final numbers came close to the polling at all.
Great explanation, but the point about needing to get a sample size that looks like the population needs to be clarified. In election polling, you need a sample that looks like the VOTING population, not the overall population. In the US this has been increasingly difficult over the past three election cycles. The problem is simple (you need to know who is going to turnout in order to make an accurate prediction based on your poll results), but the solution is notoriously difficult when turnout AND poll-response demographics vary wildly between elections and parties.
Yo les voy a decir la mejor manera de predecir una elección... Pregunté le a sus jefes ellos son los que deciden quién y quién no pueden ocupar una presidencia. ¿Que no? The economist siempre dando avisos a la luz de la sombra.
I wouldn't have thought so, especially not in the UK. I was wondering about if the 13 keys would be talked about in this video, but they're not really suited to european elections. One of the factors is whether a 3rd candidate receives 5%+ of the vote- clearly focused on a two-party system, and I'm not sure how many 2 party systems there are in Europe but certainly here in the UK there isn't, and there isn't in France and Germany either
Excellent presentation but no mention of brexit. And this was 9 days ago as someone is supposed to have said a ‘week is a long time in politics’, let alone 9 days!!!
Working out the future leader works in systems of single winner constituencies or presidential systems but in proportional systems the leader is determined by deals between parties and can't be predicted in the same way.
I am interested in how the polls can actually influence the outcome of an election. We all know that voters like to back horses that they believe can win. Donors prefer to place their money where it is likely to contribute to success.
Is there any research on this topic?
Yes.
I would also like to hear on this tooic
@@floydblandston108 Can you share sources?
@@Spectacurl - not from memory, but I recall this being covered by the 'Economist' specifically, within their regular review of the professional literature and journals.
there's extensive research on this subject
Beautifully produced and edited! Kudos to The Economist for giving us these informative, topical, and aesthetically pleasing videos.
Thanks for another great video, Economist!
I feel like the 2020 US Presidential Election would be a more interesting case study than 2016; in the former, unlike in 2016, the national polls were incredibly inaccurate
The National polls were pretty accurate in 2016. The average poll gave Hillary Clinton a four point lead by the time of the election and she won the popular vote by two points. Fairly close, certainly within the margin of error.
Where the polls were off were the battleground states like Wisconsin, Michigan Pennsylvania, and Florida. This was also true for 2020.
This was an amazing video. Really enjoyed the methodology walk through toward the end there and providing the source code. So cool
One thing that they did not discuss at 5:30 is that the trust in the government in those states was very low. With more people losing trust it would make it much harder to know who would go to vote and who would not go. A documentary by Michael Moore named "Fahrenheit 11/9" goas more in depth on that specific topic.
Very well done video! Love the new style!
US elections are so messed up. I believe most countries do elections more or less like in my country, Colombia. In the presidential election, anyone who was able to become a candidate can participate. Every citizen votes directly. If anyone gets 50% plus one of the votes that's it. If nobody could achieve that percentage then a second round with the two highest voted candidates takes place. Again, it's one vote per citizen; whomever gets highest number of votes wins. What in the US is called "popular vote", that is in fact the vote that should count.
That is the exact french voting system. There is always two rounds because a candidate never actually gather 50% + 1 vote to win
Never knew where the term Gallop Polling came from!
Fascinating, I didn't know that poll forecasting is very similar to weather forecasting!
In portugal we have "the golden parish"
its a parish whose polls are consistently similar to the national survey and with a similar demographic composition to the national one. On the eve of the elections, the golden parishes are analyzed again and again.
"Bellwether counties" in the US
Maron will win because all other parties and voters from the left to the center will band together to prevent a Le Pen win. It always happens in French politics.
No this time it’s marine le pen
It doesn't seem like they'll do that this time…
That was usually the way, currently there is a fair bit of animosity towards Macron though - people are banding together to prevent him getting back into power. Le Pen has, publicly at least, moved away from some of the more extreme right wing views she used to side with. It's not a given thing either way
@@davidjennings2179 yeah makes totally sense cause voting for le pen is a better option than voting for macron, right?
@@xxzxcuzxme1195 I don't think so. Its a difficult choice between two bad options really.
"Negative" voting voting Is devilishly hard to poll, because the effect is difficult to quantify....
A positive vote is a simple binomial, while the negative has a third option, whether to simply withhold completely.
In 2016, with *both* candidates 'negative' ratings so high, it's a wonder the final numbers came close to the polling at all.
presidential election in the philippines is coming up in may, we are very excited what will be the result. have a peaceful election there in france
Nice video.
Pls do Philippines version
if there are two to choose from - pick that one, or that one
Great explanation, but the point about needing to get a sample size that looks like the population needs to be clarified. In election polling, you need a sample that looks like the VOTING population, not the overall population. In the US this has been increasingly difficult over the past three election cycles. The problem is simple (you need to know who is going to turnout in order to make an accurate prediction based on your poll results), but the solution is notoriously difficult when turnout AND poll-response demographics vary wildly between elections and parties.
More deterministic checking.
Hey but it's easy in a two party democracy. what about multi-party democracies?
We're gonna be having a general election here in the Philippines next month. We have a multi-party system.
France has 12 candidates in the election and at least 3 serious ones
Great use of Tarot, im sure that ms Abramovic would be proud. Your world in 2017 magazine cover did a great job at "predicting the future"
Betting turns out to be more accurate.
Regime change protests through NGOs and color revolutions are also other ways to "predict" elections.
WHAT poll?????
So... What is the forecast for Colombia?
USA is democracy??? Whaaat???
Honing success
Toughbuilt Industries TBLT STOCK to the moon soon 🔥
Yo les voy a decir la mejor manera de predecir una elección... Pregunté le a sus jefes ellos son los que deciden quién y quién no pueden ocupar una presidencia. ¿Que no? The economist siempre dando avisos a la luz de la sombra.
"It matters not who votes... Only those who count the votes."
Reality
Trumpist in the house!
The best way to predict is easy : Who gets more money.
GIGO
I like your humour! VIVE 🎉🤣👍💯MACRON 🎊👏🎈👌💯💪✔️💐
advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic and the tarot thing
👍👍👍
Do the 13 keys work in France or other European countries or is it just for the US presidential election??
I wouldn't have thought so, especially not in the UK. I was wondering about if the 13 keys would be talked about in this video, but they're not really suited to european elections. One of the factors is whether a 3rd candidate receives 5%+ of the vote- clearly focused on a two-party system, and I'm not sure how many 2 party systems there are in Europe but certainly here in the UK there isn't, and there isn't in France and Germany either
Plus, it also mentions midterms although I'm not sure about other European countries, te UK definitely doesn't have mid terms
Excellent presentation but no mention of brexit. And this was 9 days ago as someone is supposed to have said a ‘week is a long time in politics’, let alone 9 days!!!
Borish jhonshon not correct for some Indian
Boring no outcome
You don't need polls to know Macron will win lol
be a lobbist
Did macron paid for this video?
It’s called pragmatisme
Wasn't expecting those tarot cards to flip over to show faces of presidents. Nice
Tarot readers like myself do indeed use the King of Pentacles for Trump. So kudos to The Economist for getting that specific detail right. 😁
The thought of it is crazy
Informative.
Working out the future leader works in systems of single winner constituencies or presidential systems but in proportional systems the leader is determined by deals between parties and can't be predicted in the same way.