Public Choice

, Volume 140, Issue 3–4, pp 395–420 | Cite as

Modeling the influence of polls on elections: a population dynamics approach

  • Juan M. Restrepo
  • Rosalyn C. Rael
  • James M. Hyman
Article

Abstract

We propose a population dynamics model for quantifying the effects of polling data on the outcome of multi-party elections decided by a majority-rule voting process. We divide the population into two groups: committed voters impervious to polling data, and susceptible voters whose decision to vote is influenced by data, depending on its reliability. This population-based approach to modeling the process sidesteps the problem of upscaling models based upon the choices made by individuals. We find releasing poll data is not advantageous to leading candidates, but it can be exploited by those closely trailing. The analysis identifies the particular type of voting impetus at play in different stages of an election and could help strategists optimize their influence on susceptible voters.

Keywords

Voting Polling Sequential voting Landslide Head-to-head 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Banerjee, A. V. (1992). A simple model of herd behavior. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 107, 797–817. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Battaglini, M., Morton, R., & Palfrey, T. (2005). Efficiency, equity, and timing in voting mechanisms. Princeton University, Department of Economics, Center for Economic Policy Studies. Working Papers No. 81. http://ideas.repec.org/p/pri/cepsud/81.html.
  3. Berelson, B. R., Lazarfeld, P. F., & McPhee, W. N. (1954). Voting. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar
  4. Callander, S. (2007). Bandwagons and momentum in sequential voting. Review of Economic Studies. Google Scholar
  5. Goidel, R. K., & Shields, T. G. (1994). The vanishing marginals, the bandwagon, and the mass media. The Journal of Politics, 56, 802–810. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Grosser, J., Kugler, T., & Schram, A. (2005). Preference uncertainty, voter participation and electoral efficiency: An experimental study. University of Cologne Working Paper Series in Economics, 2. Google Scholar
  7. Hillygus, S. (2005). The dynamics of voter decision making among minor party supporters: The 2000 U.S. presidential election. British Journal of Political Science, 37, 225–244. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kunce, M. (2001). Pre-election polling and the rational voter: evidence from state panel data (1986–1996). Public Choice, 107, 21–34. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Larcinese, V. (2007). The instrumental voter goes to the newsagent: demand for information marginality and the media. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 19, 249–276. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. McAllister, I., & Studlar, D. T. (1991). Bandwagon, underdog, or projection? Opinion polls and electoral choice in Britain, 1979–1987. Journal of Politics, 53, 720–741. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Plumb, E. (1986). Validation of voter recall: Time of electoral decision making. Political Behavior, 8, 302–312. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Sudman, S. (1986). Do exit polls influence voting behavior? The Public Opinion Quarterly, 50, 331–339. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Juan M. Restrepo
    • 1
    • 2
  • Rosalyn C. Rael
    • 1
  • James M. Hyman
    • 3
  1. 1.Program in Applied MathematicsUniversity of ArizonaTucsonUSA
  2. 2.Department of PhysicsUniversity of ArizonaTucsonUSA
  3. 3.Applied Mathematics GroupLos Alamos National LaboratoryLos AlamosUSA

Personalised recommendations