Using Demographics in Predicting Election Results with Twitter

  • Eric SandersEmail author
  • Michelle de Gier
  • Antal van den Bosch
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10047)


The results of two Dutch elections are predicted by counting political party mentions from tweets. In an attempt to improve the predictions, gender and age information from the Twitter users is automatically derived and used to adapt the party counts to the demographics in the election turnout. The prediction improves only slightly in one of the elections where the correlation between election outcome and Twitter-based prediction was relatively lower to begin with (0.86 versus 0.97). The relatively inaccurate estimation of Twitter user age may hinder a larger improvement.


Twitter Political election prediction Demographics 



The authors would like to thank Dong Nguyen who provided the TweetGenie data, TNS-Nipo who provided the demographic data of the election turnout, Ruut Brandsma of for the polling information and Eline Pilaet, who did part of the demographic annotations of the political tweeters.


  1. 1.
    Barberá, P., Rivero, G.: Understanding the political representativeness of twitter users. Soc. Sci. Comput. Rev. 0894439314558836 (2014)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Duggan, M., Brenner, J.: The demographics of social media users, vol. 14. Pew Research Center’s Internet & American Life Project, Washington, DC (2013)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gayo-Avello, D.: A meta-analysis of state-of-the-art electoral prediction from Twitter data. Soc. Sci. Comput. Rev. 31(6), 649–679 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gelman, A.: Struggles with survey weighting and regression modeling. Stat. Sci. 22, 153–164 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Goerres, A.: Why are older people more likely to vote? The impact of ageing on electoral turnout in Europe. Br. J. Politics Int. Relat. 9(1), 90–121 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Inglehart, R., Norris, P.: The developmental theory of the gender gap: womens and mens voting behavior in global perspective. Int. Political Sci. Rev. 21(4), 441–463 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jungherr, A.: Predictor of electoral success and public opinion at large. In: Jungherr, A. (ed.) Analyzing Political Communication with Digital Trace Data: The Role of Twitter Messages in Social Science Research. Contributions to Political Science, pp. 189–210. Springer, Heidelberg (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jungherr, A., Jürgens, P., Schoen, H.: Why the pirate party won the German election of 2009 or the trouble with predictions: a response to tumasjan, a., sprenger, to, sander, pg, & welpe, im predicting elections with twitter: what 140 characters reveal about political sentiment. Soc. Sci. Comput. Rev. 30(2), 229–234 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mellon, J., Prosser, C.: Twitter and Facebook are not representative of the general population: political attitudes and demographics of social media users. Available at SSRN (2016)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mislove, A., Lehmann, S., Ahn, Y.Y., Onnela, J.P., Rosenquist, J.N.: Understanding the demographics of Twitter users. In: ICWSM 2011, p. 5 (2011)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Nguyen, D., Trieschnigg, D., Meder, T.: Tweetgenie: development, evaluation, and lessons learned. In: Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING 2014), pp. 62–66. Association for Computational Linguistics, August 2014.
  12. 12.
    Nguyen, D.P., Gravel, R., Trieschnigg, R., Meder, T.: How old do you think i am? A study of language and age in Twitter. In: Proceedings of the Seventh AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media. AAAI Press (2013)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sanders, E., Van den Bosch, A.: Relating political party mentions on Twitter with polls and election results. In: Proceedings of DIR-2013, pp. 68–71 (2013).
  14. 14.
    Tjong Kim Sang, E., Bos, J.: Predicting the 2011 Dutch senate election results with Twitter. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Semantic Analysis in Social Media, pp. 53–60. Association for Computational Linguistics (2012)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Tilley, J., Evans, G.: Ageing and generational effects on vote choice: combining cross-sectional and panel data to estimate APC effects. Electoral Stud. 33, 19–27 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Tjong Kim Sang, E., Van den Bosch, A.: Dealing with big data: the case of Twitter. Comput. Linguist. Neth. J. 3, 121–134 (2013)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Tumasjan, A., Sprenger, T.O., Sandner, P.G., Welpe, I.M.: Predicting elections with Twitter: what 140 characters reveal about political sentiment. In: ICWSM 2010, pp. 178–185 (2010)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Verge Mestre, T., Tormos Marín, R.: The persistence of gender differences in political interest. Revista Española de Investigaciones Sociológicas 138 (2012)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wang, W., Rothschild, D., Goel, S., Gelman, A.: Forecasting elections with non-representative polls. Int. J. Forecast. 31(3), 980–991 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Webster, S.W., Pierce, A.W.: Older, younger, or more similar? The use of age as a voting heuristic. Tech. rep., working paper (2015)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eric Sanders
    • 1
    Email author
  • Michelle de Gier
    • 1
  • Antal van den Bosch
    • 1
  1. 1.CLS/CLSTRadboud UniversityNijmegenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations