Journal article
Missing nonvoters and misweighted samples: explaining the 2015 great British polling miss
- Abstract:
- Preelection polls for the 2015 UK General Election missed the final result by a considerable margin: underestimating the Conservative Party and overestimating Labour. Analyzing evidence for five theories of why the polls missed using British Election Study (BES) data, we find limited evidence for systematic vote intention misreporting, late swing, systematically different preferences among “don’t knows,” or differential turnout of parties’ supporters. By comparing the BES face-to-face probability sample and BES Internet panel, we show that the online survey’s polling error is primarily caused by undersampling nonvoters, then weighting respondents to represent the general population. Consequently, demographic groups with a low probability of voting are overweighted within the voter subsample. Finally, we show that this mechanism is likely partially responsible for the polls overestimating the Liberal Democrats in 2010, illustrating that this is a long-standing problem.
- Publication status:
- Published
- Peer review status:
- Peer reviewed
Actions
Access Document
- Files:
-
-
(Preview, Accepted manuscript, pdf, 1.7MB, Terms of use)
-
- Publisher copy:
- 10.1093/poq/nfx015
Authors
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- Journal:
- Public Opinion Quarterly More from this journal
- Volume:
- 81
- Issue:
- 3
- Pages:
- 661–687
- Publication date:
- 2017-05-24
- Acceptance date:
- 2016-08-12
- DOI:
- EISSN:
-
1537-5331
- ISSN:
-
0033-362X
- Pubs id:
-
pubs:643715
- UUID:
-
uuid:0483c1c0-2302-4bb1-89e9-b52ba6287c6a
- Local pid:
-
pubs:643715
- Source identifiers:
-
643715
- Deposit date:
-
2016-09-14
Terms of use
- Copyright holder:
- Mellon and Prosser
- Copyright date:
- 2017
- Notes:
- Copyright © 2017 The Authors. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Association for Public Opinion Research. This is the accepted manuscript version of the article. The final version is available online from Oxford University Press at: https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfx015
If you are the owner of this record, you can report an update to it here: Report update to this record