The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

Why did the polls overestimate Liberal Democrat support? Sources of polling error in the 2010 British general election

Why did the polls overestimate Liberal Democrat support? Sources of polling error in the 2010 British general election
Why did the polls overestimate Liberal Democrat support? Sources of polling error in the 2010 British general election
Pollsters once again found themselves in the firing line in the aftermath of the 2010 British general election. Many critics noted that nearly all pollsters in 2010 expected a substantial surge for the Liberal Democrats that did not materialize. Basing conclusions regarding the relative merits of pollsters or benefits of methodological design features on inspection of just the final poll from each pollster is inherently problematic, because each poll is subject to sampling error. This paper uses a state?space model of polls from across the course of the 2010 election campaign which allows us to assess the extent to which particular pollsters systematically over? or under?estimate each main party’s share of the vote, while allowing for both the usual margins of error for each poll and changes in public opinion from day?to?day. Thus, we can assess the evidence for systematic differences between pollsters’ results according to the use of particular methodologies, and estimate how much of the discrepancy between the final polls and the election outcome is due to methodological differences that are associated with systematic error in the polls. We find robust evidence of an over?estimation in Liberal Democrat support, but do not find evidence to support the hypothesis that the polls erred due to a late swing away from the party, nor that any of the methodological choices made by pollsters were significantly associated with this over?estimation.
1745-7289
179-209
Pickup, Mark
9f23d950-f879-448e-b7a6-4b7f55ebe999
Matthews, Scott J.
a8f0739c-7c8f-42f8-a5e3-82a3ad34e862
Jennings, Will
2ab3f11c-eb7f-44c6-9ef2-3180c1a954f7
Ford, Robert
f2f320f9-15df-4a16-ab41-505f831a5ed1
Fisher, Stephen D.
ae681ff6-29f6-4d14-83d9-fc272d7c3135
Pickup, Mark
9f23d950-f879-448e-b7a6-4b7f55ebe999
Matthews, Scott J.
a8f0739c-7c8f-42f8-a5e3-82a3ad34e862
Jennings, Will
2ab3f11c-eb7f-44c6-9ef2-3180c1a954f7
Ford, Robert
f2f320f9-15df-4a16-ab41-505f831a5ed1
Fisher, Stephen D.
ae681ff6-29f6-4d14-83d9-fc272d7c3135

Pickup, Mark, Matthews, Scott J., Jennings, Will, Ford, Robert and Fisher, Stephen D. (2011) Why did the polls overestimate Liberal Democrat support? Sources of polling error in the 2010 British general election. Journal of Elections Public Opinion and Parties, 21 (2), 179-209. (doi:10.1080/17457289.2011.563309).

Record type: Article

Abstract

Pollsters once again found themselves in the firing line in the aftermath of the 2010 British general election. Many critics noted that nearly all pollsters in 2010 expected a substantial surge for the Liberal Democrats that did not materialize. Basing conclusions regarding the relative merits of pollsters or benefits of methodological design features on inspection of just the final poll from each pollster is inherently problematic, because each poll is subject to sampling error. This paper uses a state?space model of polls from across the course of the 2010 election campaign which allows us to assess the extent to which particular pollsters systematically over? or under?estimate each main party’s share of the vote, while allowing for both the usual margins of error for each poll and changes in public opinion from day?to?day. Thus, we can assess the evidence for systematic differences between pollsters’ results according to the use of particular methodologies, and estimate how much of the discrepancy between the final polls and the election outcome is due to methodological differences that are associated with systematic error in the polls. We find robust evidence of an over?estimation in Liberal Democrat support, but do not find evidence to support the hypothesis that the polls erred due to a late swing away from the party, nor that any of the methodological choices made by pollsters were significantly associated with this over?estimation.

This record has no associated files available for download.

More information

e-pub ahead of print date: 24 May 2011
Published date: 2011
Organisations: Politics & International Relations

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 336596
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/336596
ISSN: 1745-7289
PURE UUID: bb0c4081-d73a-48da-a256-3e50a8ff8326
ORCID for Will Jennings: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0001-9007-8896

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 30 Mar 2012 10:31
Last modified: 15 Mar 2024 03:42

Export record

Altmetrics

Contributors

Author: Mark Pickup
Author: Scott J. Matthews
Author: Will Jennings ORCID iD
Author: Robert Ford
Author: Stephen D. Fisher

Download statistics

Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.

View more statistics

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×