Advertisement

Quality & Quantity

, Volume 53, Issue 3, pp 1369–1389 | Cite as

Predicting general election outcomes: campaigns and changing voter knowledge at the 2017 general election in England

  • Ron JohnstonEmail author
  • Todd Hartman
  • Charles Pattie
Article
  • 99 Downloads

Abstract

There is a growing literature suggesting that the result for each constituency at British general elections can be predicted using ‘citizen forecasts’ obtained through voter surveys. This may be true for the majority of constituencies where the result at previous contests was a substantial majority for one party’s candidates: few ‘safe seats’ change hands. But is it true in the marginal constituencies, where elections are won and lost? Analysis of such ‘citizen forecast’ data for the Labour-Conservative marginal constituencies in 2017 indicates not. Although respondents were aware of the seats’ relative marginality and of general trends in party support during the campaign, they could not separate out those that were eventually lost by each party from those that were won again, even in seats where the elected party won comfortably.

Keywords

Forecasting Wisdom of the crowd Constituencies Marginality England 2017 

References

  1. Achen, C.H., Bartels, L.M.: Democracy for Realists: Why Elections Do Not Produce Responsive Government. Princeton University Press, Princeton (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allen, N.: Gambling with the electorate. In: Allen, N., Bartle, J. (eds.) None Past the Post: Britain at the Polls, 2017, pp. 1–33. Manchester University Press, Manchester (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Blackwell, M., Honaker, J., King, G.: A unified approach to measurement error and missing data: overview and applications. Sociol. Methods Res. 46, 303–341 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Curtice, J.: A return to normality? How the electoral system operated. In: Geddes, A., Tonge, J. (eds.) The British General Election of 2015, pp. 25–40. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2015)Google Scholar
  5. Curtice, J.: How the electoral system failed to deliver—again. In: Tonge, J., Leiston-Bandira, C., Wilks-Heeg, S. (eds.) The British General Election of 2018, pp. 29–45. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2018)Google Scholar
  6. Curtice, J., Fisher, S., Kuha, J., Mellon, J.: Focus: on the 2017 Exit Poll—another surprise, another success. Discover Society, 5 July 2017: focus-on-the-2017-exit-poll-another-surprise-another-success (2017)Google Scholar
  7. Denver, D.: The results: how Britain voted. In: Tonge, J., Leiston-Bandira, C., Wilks-Heeg, S. (eds.) The British General Election of 2018, pp. 8–28. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2018)Google Scholar
  8. Graefe, A.: Accuracy of vote expectation surveys in forecasting elections. Publ. Opin. Q. 78, 204–232 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gudgin, G., Taylor, P.J.: Seats, Votes and the Spatial Organisation of Elections. Pion, London (1979). reprinted 1979—Colchester: ECPR Press Google Scholar
  10. Johnston, R.J., Pattie, C.J., Dorling, D., Rossiter, D.J.: From Votes to Seats: the Operation of the UK Electoral System since 1945. Manchester University Press, Manchester (2001)Google Scholar
  11. Johnston, R.J., Pattie, C.J.: Money and Electoral Politics: Local Parties and Funding in General Elections. The Policy Press, Bristol (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Johnston, R.J., Pattie, C.J., Hartman, T.K.: Local knowledge, local learning and predicting election outcomes: voter assessments of likely party success in Scotland’s constituencies at the 2015 and 2017 general elections. Scott. Aff. (2019)Google Scholar
  13. Johnston, R.J., Rossiter, D.J., Hartman, T., Pattie, C.J., Manley, D., Jones, K.: Are we going to win in that seat? An exploration of constituency-level estimates at the 2017 British general election. Int. J. Mark. Res. 60, 463–483 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Leiter, D., Murr, A., Ramirez, E.R., Stegmaier, M.: Social networks and citizen forecasting; the more friends the better. Int. J. Forecast. 34, 235–248 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lewis-Beck, M.S., Skalaban, A.: Citizen forecasting: can voters see into the future? Br. J. Polit. Sci. 36, 617–634 (1989)Google Scholar
  16. Lewis-Beck, M.S., Stegmaier, M.: Citizen forecasting: can UK voters see the future? Elect. Stud. 30, 264–268 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Murr, A.E.: ‘Wisdom of crowds’? A decentralised election forecasting model that uses citizens’ local expectations. Elect. Stud. 30, 771–783 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Murr, A.E.: The party leadership model: an early forecast of the 2015 British General Election. Res. Politics (2015a).  https://doi.org/10.1177/2053168015583346 Google Scholar
  19. Murr, A.E.: The wisdom of crowds: applying Condorcet’s jury theorem to forecasting US Presidential Elections. Int. J. Forecast. 31, 916–929 (2015b)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Murr, A.E.: The wisdom of crowds: what do citizens forecast for the 2015 British general election? Elect. Stud. 41, 283–288 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Pattie, C.J., Johnston, R.J.: Hanging on the telephone? Doorstep and telephone canvassing at the British General Election of 1997. Br. J. Polit. Sci. 33, 303–322 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Pattie, C.J., Johnston, R.J.: The growing impact of telephone political canvassing at the 2005 British General Election. Int. J. Mark. Res. 54, 49–70 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Shipman, T.: Fall Out. A Year of Political Mayhem. William Collins, London (2017)Google Scholar
  24. Stiers, D., Dassonneville, R.: Affect versus cognition: wishful thinking on election day. An analysis using exit poll data from Belgium. Int. J. Forecast. 34, 199–215 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Geographical SciencesUniversity of BristolBristolUK
  2. 2.Sheffield Methods InstituteUniversity of SheffieldSheffieldUK
  3. 3.Department of PoliticsUniversity of SheffieldSheffieldUK

Personalised recommendations