Content uploaded by Andreas Graefe
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Andreas Graefe
Content may be subject to copyright.
1
Combining Forecasts for U.S. Presidential Elections: The PollyVote
Andreas Graefe
Alfred G. Cuzàn
Randall J. Jones, Jr.
J. Scott Armstrong
10/30/09
Abstract. In the PollyVote, we evaluated the combination principle to forecast the five
U.S. presidential elections between 1992 and 2008. We combined forecasts from three or
four different component methods: trial heat polls, the Iowa Electronic Markets (IEM),
quantitative models and, in the 2004 and 2008 contests, periodic surveys of experts on
American politics. The forecasts were combined within as well as across components. On
average, combining within components reduced forecast error  and increased
predictive accuracy  by 17% to 40%. Combining across components led to additional
error reductions ranging from 7% to 68%, depending on the forecast horizon. In
addition, across all five elections, the PollyVote predicted the correct election winner on
all but 4 out of 957 days. The gains from applying the combination principle to election
forecasting were much larger than those obtained in other fields.
2
Introduction
In both the 2004 and 2008 U.S. presidential campaigns we operated a web site
(www.pollyvote.com) that made frequent forecasts of the election outcome. These
forecasts were generated by combining forecasts within each of four methods and then
combining the forecasts across these four methods. The forecast methods included
campaign (trial heat) polls, voteshare contract prices from the Iowa Electronic Market,
surveys of experts who were mostly political scientists specializing in American politics
(but not election forecasters), and several quantitative models, most wellknown for
forecasting presidential elections. To further test the value of this approach beyond our
experience in 2004 and 2008, we made retrospective forecasts for the 1992, 1996, and
the 2000 elections. In the following sections we describe 1) the theory underlying the
technique of combining forecasts, 2) previous applications of this technique in other
contexts, 3) the design and implementation of our approach to combining in this
application to elections, and 4) the gains in forecast accuracy that resulted from
combining.
The combination principle in forecasting
Combining forecasts can reduce error in several ways. A combined forecast is likely to be
more accurate than a typical forecast of an individual component, because biases
associated with the data and methods used in various forecasts are likely to differ. Hence,
their forecast errors are likely to be uncorrelated and perhaps offsetting. In addition,
combined forecasts make use of more information than any one component forecast.
More information provides a more complete picture of influences affecting the future. In
probability terms, because the ―sample‖ of information underlying a combined forecast is
larger than that of a single forecast, it is likely that the combined forecast is more
accurate than that coming from any single included source. Mathematically, the
combined forecast will always be at least as accurate as the typical individual forecast.
These expectations are supported by empirical evidence. In a metaanalysis of 30 studies,
Armstrong (2001) showed that combining forecasts reduced forecast error by about 12%
when compared with the typical error of the components. In addition, combining
forecasts never reduced forecast accuracy, and substantially lowered the risk of large
3
forecast errors. Often, the combined forecast was more accurate than forecasts from the
best individual method. Many of these studies were based on combining only two
methods, and most of the combinations were derived from similar methods (such as
judgmental forecasts). With every additional forecast, the accuracy of the combined
forecast normally improves, although at a slower rate. Based on this, Armstrong (2001)
recommended using as many as five methods, and combining forecasts mechanically,
according to a predetermined procedure. Furthermore, the findings suggest that
forecasts should be weighted equally, unless there is strong prior evidence that supports
differential weights.
Under ideal conditions, the gains from combining can be expected substantially to
exceed the 12% error reduction reported in Armstrong's metaanalysis. In addition, gains
are likely to be greater when forecast uncertainty is high. Thus, combining is especially
useful for long forecast horizons.
Although the combination principle has been shown to reduce error, its application to
forecasting and decisionmaking is not widespread. Larrick and Soll (2006) concluded
from a series of experiments that combining is in limited use because ―[p]eople lack the
intuition for it, and rarely have an opportunity to learn it‖ (2006:111). In this paper, we
demonstrate the value of combining when applied to election forecasting, perhaps
thereby encouraging wider use of this simple but powerful technique.
Construction of the PollyVote
Our presidential election forecasts predict the percent of the twoparty vote garnered by
the incumbent party candidate. We call these forecasts the PollyVote – ―pol‖ for political
and ―poly‖ for many methods. The process of combining forecasts is simple—we average
within and across the component forecasts, weighing them all equally. We used this
technique in generating our ex ante forecasts for the 2004 and 2008 elections, as
reported in real time at www.pollyvote.com. This also was the technique used in creating
our retrospective forecasts for 1992, 1996, and 2000.
Again, as shown in Figure 1, the PollyVote takes information from four different
component forecasting methods: (1) polls, (2) prediction markets, (3) surveys of
4
American politics experts, and (4) quantitative models. To calculate the PollyVote,
forecasts are combined in a twostage process. First, forecasts are combined within each
method. For example, in 2008 we used the average of recent polls as reported at
RealClearPolitics.com (RCP). Second, these averaged forecasts from each of the four
methods are in turn averaged. The latter process of combining across the component
methods produces the PollyVote. Thus, the PollyVote's final 2008 forecast of November
3 was the average of the following: (1) the RCP average of polls, 46.1% for McCain; the
median of the experts' predictions in the final survey, 47.5%; the average price of the last
week's Iowa Market voteshare contract, 46.7%; and the average forecast of the
regression models, 47.1%. This average of averages was 46.8% for McCain, the PollyVote
forecast. (McCain received 46.3% of the 2party vote, so the PollyVote forecast error was
0.5%.)
Figure 1: Construction of the PollyVote for Forecasting the Incumbent Share
of the TwoParty Vote 
5
Combining within components
Campaign polls
Campaign – or trial heat – polls reveal voter support for candidates in an election.
Although survey results are not predictions – only assessments of current opinion or
―snapshots‖ – consumers of polls routinely interpret them as forecasts and project the
results to Election Day. However, the information generated by any single poll is
unreliable for forecasting the outcome of the election, especially early in the campaign. In
both 2004 and 2008, polls conducted by reputable survey organizations at about the
same time revealed considerable variation in results.
One way to mitigate the problem of the variation among polls is to combine polls that
have been published at about the same time by calculating their mean or median. For
example, Gott and Colley (2008) identified the median poll taken in the previous 30 days
to predict the 2004 electoral vote. They correctly forecasted the winner of every state but
one. This successful performance was repeated in 2008, when they again missed only
one state.
In the PollyVote, polls are combined by calculating rolling averages of the incumbent
party’s share of the twoparty vote in recently published polls. In 2004, as well as
retrospectively for the three elections from 1992 to 2000, we calculated the rolling
averages of the three most recent polls. (In case more than three polls were published per
day, all polls of that day were averaged. That way, we obtained one pollbased forecast
per day.) In 2008, we relied on the daily updated RCP poll average from
RealClearPolitics.com. The pollbased component forecast is hereafter referred to as
Polls
PV
.
6
Table 1: Incumbent Share of TwoParty Vote: Last RCP Poll
Average Prior to Election Day, 2008
Poll
November
McCain two
party
Absolute
error
Marist
3
45.3
1.1
Battleground
2  3
48.2
1.2
Rasmussen Reports
1  3
46.9
0.6
Reuters/CSPAN/Zogby
1  3
44.3
2.0
IBD/TIPP
1  3
45.8
0.5
FOX News
1  2
46.2
0.1
NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl
1 – 2
45.7
0.6
Gallup
10/31  2
44.4
1.9
Diageo/Hotline
10/31  2
47.4
1.0
CBS News
10/31  2
45.2
1.2
ABC News/Wash Post
10/30  2
45.4
1.0
Ipsos/McClatchy
10/30  2
46.5
0.1
CNN/Opinion Research
10/30  1
46.5
0.1
Pew Research
10/29  1
46.9
0.6
Error of typical individual poll (MAE)
0.90
RCP poll average
10/29 
11/03
46.07
0.25
Error reduction by RCP compared to typical poll
72%
The value of combining polls to reduce their forecast error can be illustrated by again
referring to the last RCP poll average prior to the 2008 election (calculated as the mean
of the 14 individual polls conducted between October 29 and November 3, 2008). As
evident in Table 1, even though all of these polls were conducted shortly before Election
Day, their individual errors varied substantially. In fact, the range in error was from 0.1
to 2.0 percentage points. The mean absolute error (MAE) across these 14 polls can be
considered the error of a typical individual poll, which was 0.9%. In other words, if one
had randomly relied on an individual poll, the forecast error on average would have been
0.9%. By comparison, the RCP average of the 14 poll results missed the election outcome
by only 0.25%. Thus, as expected, the forecast of the combined polls was more accurate
than the forecast of the typical individual poll. Compared to the typical poll, the
reduction in forecast error from combining polls was 72% ([0.9  0.25] / 0.9 * 100).
Prediction markets
Betting markets to predict election outcomes are not new and have an interesting history.
Rhode and Strumpf (2004) studied betting markets that existed for the 15 presidential
7
elections from 1884 through 1940 and found that these markets ―did a remarkable job
forecasting elections in an era before scientific polling‖ (2004:127). At times trading
activity in the betting markets was higher than in the stock exchanges on Wall Street.
During some election campaigns, newspapers such as the New York Times reported
market prices almost on a daily basis. Nonetheless, with increasing availability of other
forms of gambling and the rise of opinion polls, presidential betting markets disappeared
after 1940.
Betting markets for elections reappeared in 1988 when the Iowa Electronic Market
(IEM) was launched as a futures market in which contracts were traded on the outcome
of the presidential election that year. Initially, the IEM, commonly viewed as a
"prediction market," provided more accurate election forecasts than traditional opinion
polls. In analyzing 964 polls for the five presidential elections from 1988 to 2004, Berg et
al. (2008) found that IEM market forecasts were closer to the actual election results 74%
of the time. However, this advantage seems to disappear when comparing the market
forecasts to damped polls. In analyzing data from the same elections, Erikson and
Wlezien (2008) found that polls which had been combined and damped were more
accurate than both the winnertakeall and the voteshare IEM markets.
Figure 2: Original IEM and IEM
PV
Forecasts of the Incumbent’s Share of the
TwoParty Vote (14 days prior to Election Day, 2008)
45
46
47
14
10
6
2
Forecasted twoparty vote share for McCain
Days to Election Day
IEM_PV (7day rolling average); MAE .44
Original IEM (last traded market price); MAE .50
Election outcome
8
The IEM component of the PollyVote is based on average daily trading prices of the vote
share contract for the incumbent party candidate. Forecasts for 1992 through 2004 were
generated by calculating 7day rolling averages of the average daily trading price.
Forecasts for 2008 were based on the price of the last trade of the day, also calculated as
7day rolling averages. We refer to this combination of original IEM forecasts as IEM
PV
.
Calculating the IEM
PV
forecasts as rolling averages was expected to moderate
overreactions of the market due to information cascades, which can cause unexpected
positive or negative spikes in prices. Figure 2 illustrates this for the last two weeks prior
to Election Day in 2008. The mean absolute error of the original IEM forecasts was 0.5
percentage points. By comparison, IEM
PV
was smoother, leading to a MAE of 0.44
percentage points – or an error reduction of 14%. Note that this method of combining,
unlike that used for the other components, does not ensure that the combined forecast
will be better than the latest trade.
Expert forecasts
In 2004 and 2008 we formed a panel of experts in American politics, mostly academics,
and contacted them periodically for their estimates of the incumbent’s share of the two
party vote on Election Day. We deliberately excluded experts who had made forecasts
from regression models, because that method is represented as a separate component in
the PollyVote. In 2004 and for initial surveys for the 2008 election, the expert survey was
conducted using the Delphi method. Accordingly, we asked participants to provide
reasons for their forecasts and then conducted a second round of the survey (Jones,
Armstrong, and Cuzán 2007). Later, after finding that forecasts were rarely adjusted as a
result of the second round, we simplified the process, which became a oneround expert
survey without feedback. For the retrospective analyses of the three elections from 1992
to 2004, no expert forecasts were available.
The results of the surveys are provided in Appendix 2. (Appendices can be accessed
online at http://tinyurl.com/pollyvoteappendix. Also, the full dataset is available online
at http://tinyurl.com/pollyvotedata.) Interestingly, in neither election year did the
median expert prediction of the incumbent share in the twoparty vote vary more than
1.0% from one survey to the next. Indeed, this was the most stable component of the
9
PollyVote, moderating the turbulence in the polls.
Quantitative models
Over the last several election cycles, economists and political scientists have used
regression models to estimate the impact of certain variables on the outcome of U.S.
presidential elections. Then, they would often use these models to provide a forecast of
the twoparty vote received by the incumbent party candidate in the next election. As
summarized by Jones and Cuzán (2008), most models include between two and five
variables. They typically have an indicator of economic conditions and a measure of
public opinion.
The track record of quantitative models is mixed. Among the bestknown and historically
better performing models are those by Abramowitz, Campbell, Erikson and Wlezien, and
Fair (Jones and Cuzán 2008). The structure of these models has remained relatively
unchanged over time. Most other models, however, have undergone significant revision
since their first appearance, which has usually occurred after a forecast has been wide of
the mark.
In 2008, the PollyVote incorporated forecasts from 16 quantitative models. Ten models
were used in 2004. For our retrospective analyses of the elections in 1992, 1996, and
2000, we included the forecasts of 4, 8, and 9 models, respectively. Forecasts for most
models were available in July and August, and several were updated in mid or late
October, as revised data became available. These forecasts are reported in Appendix 1.
Not surprisingly, in four of the five elections the average of the models' forecasts resulted
in lower error than the typical individual model forecast.
Accuracy gains from combining within components
Table 2 summarizes the reduction in forecast error that was achieved across five
presidential elections, 19922008, by combining forecasts within each component
method of the PollyVote. Error reduction for each component was calculated as follows:
 Polls
PV
: The error of the last combined poll forecast prior to Election Day was
compared to the error of the typical individual poll for that period.
 IEM
PV
: The error of the actual IEM prices for each of the last 7 days prior to
10
Election Day was compared to the error of the 7day rolling averages of the IEM
(i.e. the IEMPV) for the same period.
 Experts: The error of the median expert forecast from the last survey prior to
Election Day was compared to the error of the typical individual expert forecast.
 Models
PV
: The error of the last combined forecast from regression models prior to
Election Day was compared to the error of the typical individual model’s last
forecast.
Across all five elections, combining forecasts reduced prediction error by an average 17%
for experts, 25% for quantitative models, 35% for polls and 40% for the IEM.
Table 2: Percent Reduction in Error of Combined
Forecasts vs. Typical Forecasts
Retrospective
Ex ante
Mean
1992
1996
2000
2004
2008
Polls
PV
0
26
33
46
72
35
IEM
PV
78
22
8
42
65
40
Models
PV
5
40
0
13
58
23
Experts



39
6
17
Accuracy gains from combining across components
In addition to the error reduction that resulted from combining within forecasting
methods, further gains in accuracy can likely be achieved by combining forecasts from
different methods that draw on different data. Combining across methods has been
shown to be particularly successful in improving forecast accuracy where forecast errors
from different methods are negatively correlated or uncorrelated. If forecast errors are
positively correlated, combining is still useful when correlation coefficients are low. For
the last 93 days prior to Election Day, in most cases the errors of the component
forecasts were only moderately correlated (cf. Table 3), so combining across methods did
increase forecast accuracy. Also, note that there is no pattern of correlations between
components across years. For the elections in 2004 and 2008, data from all four
components was available for 93 days prior to Election Day. The retrospective analysis
from 1992 to 2000 did not include expert forecasts.
11
Although the correlations were not strong in either year, in 2008 the most correlated
errors were those of the IEM and the polls, and in 2004 those of the models and the
polls. In both years, the experts’ errors were uncorrelated with errors of the polls, as they
were in 2008 with those of the IEM quotes. This led us to speculate about experts’
seeming immunity from disturbances. The fact that they were surveyed on a quarterly or
monthly basis no doubt allows for this more serene perspective.
Table 3: Correlations of Errors, 93 Days Prior to Election Day
Election
year
Polls
PV
&
IEM
PV
Polls
PV
&
Models
PV
Polls
PV
&
Experts
IEM
PV
&
Models
PV
IEM
PV
&
Experts
Experts
&
Models
PV
2008
.60
.22
.05
.39
.01
.22
2004
.06
.61
.01
.43
.36
.68
2000
.19
.11

.61


1996
.35
.04

.49


1992
0.5
.42

.79


Furthermore, we found that in each of the four elections, the combined forecast of the
quantitative models consistently overpredicted the incumbent’s actual vote share. Only
on one out of 465 days (93 days per election) did the Models
PV
forecast underpredict the
incumbent’s vote share, whereas the remaining three components under or over
predicted the vote shares about 50% of the time. Given that the Models
PV
consistently
overpredicted, bracketing occurred whenever one of the remaining components under
predicted. In these cases the PollyVote was more accurate than the typical forecast
drawn randomly from each component. For example, on the last day prior to the
election, the Models
PV
forecast overpredicted the outcome in each of the five election
years. By comparison, Polls
PV
underpredicted four times and IEM
PV
three times. For the
two elections for which we obtained expert forecasts, the expert forecasts once over
predicted and once underpredicted the election outcome.
Table 4 shows the mean absolute error (MAE) for the PollyVote forecast and for each
combined component forecast for three time periods: the Election Eve forecast (1 day
prior), 7 days prior to Election Day, and 93 days before the election. Across all five
elections, the PollyVote yielded a lower MAE than each of its component methods in all
three time horizons. For the full 93 days prior to Election Day, errors were particularly
12
small compared to Polls
PV
and Models
PV
, although Polls
PV
became more accurate closer
to the election. Among the four components, IEM
PV
was most accurate. (Note that the
experts’ forecasts were only available for the last two elections, 2004 and 2008.) See
Appendices 4 and 5 for MAEs and the error reduction of the PollyVote relative to each
component forecast per election year.
Table 4: MAE of the PollyVote and Its Components, 1992
2008
Time
horizon
(days to
Election Day)
PollyVote
Polls
PV
IEM
PV
Models
PV
Experts*
1
0.9
1.1
1.1
2.6
1.0
7
0.8
1.5
1.0
2.6
1.0
93
1.2
2.8
1.3
2.7
1.7
*only for the two elections in 2004 and 2008
Figure 3 compares the mean absolute error of the PollyVote to a typical component and
to the most accurate (―best‖) component for the last five elections, 1992 to 2008. On each
of the 93 days prior to Election Day, the PollyVote error was substantially smaller than
the typical error of its components. Furthermore, the PollyVote was often more accurate
than its most accurate component, the performance of which is plotted in the figure as
the "best component" line. Normally, the combined forecast is more accurate than its
best component only in ideal conditions. That is, if the individual component forecasts
bracket the true value in a way that no component forecast is more accurate than the
combined forecast. Within the 93day time horizon, the PollyVote was more accurate
than its best component on 78 days in 1992, 15 days in 1996, 38 days in 2000, 35 days in
2004, and 5 days in 2008. On average, the PollyVote forecast was more accurate than its
best component on 37% of all days across the five elections. Not surprisingly, the
PollyVote was more accurate than the best component for longterm forecasts during the
first third of the 93 day forecast period, when uncertainty was highest.
13
Figure 3: Mean absolute errors of the PollyVote, its typical component, and
its best component
Combined forecasts create problems for the traditional estimates of uncertainty favored
by statisticians. However, these problems can be avoided by using empirical estimates of
uncertainty based on outofsample forecasts. To assess outofsample accuracy, we
calculated the standard deviation for the five elections for which we made PollyVote
forecasts. The uncertainty is expected to vary according to the forecast horizon. Figure 4
shows the average standard deviation of the PollyVote with all four components (as
implemented in the last two elections) as well as for the three elections from 1992 to
2008, when no expert forecasts were available. Uncertainty was higher for the elections
in which only three components were available. As expected, uncertainty was low closer
to Election Day.
0
1
2
3
93
83
73
63
53
43
33
23
13
3
MAE (19922008)
Days to Election Day
PollyVote
Typical component
Best component
14
Figure 4: Average standard deviation of the PollyVote with four and three
components
Predicting the election winner
Thus far we have assessed the capability of the PollyVote and its component methods to
make point forecasts of the vote share of the incumbent party’s candidate. We now turn
to an evaluation of these forecasting techniques in predicting the election winner. How
well can they predict the winner, not only shortly before Election Day, but far in
advance? To make this evaluation we counted the number of days on which an approach
correctly predicted the winner of the election. We refer to that result as the "hit rate."
Table 5: Hit Rate (%) of the PollyVote and Its Components
1992
1996
2000
2004
2008
Total
(n=93)
(n=93)
(n=93)
(n=246)
(n=432)
(=957)
PollyVote
100
100
89
100
100
99
Polls
PV
100
100
46
58
84
77
IEM
PV
75
100
37
92
97
88
Models
PV
0
100
100
100
100
90
Experts (combined)



13*
100
89**
* n=93; ** n=525
Table 5 shows the hit rate for the PollyVote and its components for each of the last five
elections, as well as for all elections combined. Over the five elections, comparable
forecasts were possible for 957 days. The PollyVote's hit rate was 99%. That is, on 99% of
the days included in this study, the PollyVote correctly predicted the election winner. No
0
1
2
3
93
83
73
63
53
43
33
23
13
3
Standard deviation
Days to Election Day
PollyVote 2004 and 2008 (4 components)
PollyVote 19922000 (3 components)
15
method that was a component of the PollyVote matched this performance.
The PollyVote versus uncombined polls and IEM forecasts
In the preceding analysis we compared the performance of the PollyVote relative to its
components, which are comprised of combined forecasts produced by each respective
method. In this final section, we compare the PollyVote with uncombined polls and
original uncombined IEM forecasts across the forecasting horizons examined previously.
We limit the analysis to polls and IEM forecasts because they provide many more data
points across longer periods than exist for the other two methods, the regression models
and the expert surveys.
Table 6: MAE of the PollyVote, the Typical Poll and
the Original IEM, 19922008
Time horizon
(days to Election
Day)
PollyVote
Typical
poll
IEM
1
0.9
2.0
1.9
7
0.8
2.7
1.4
93
1.2
3.2
1.4
Table 6 shows the mean absolute error of the PollyVote, the typical poll and the typical
IEM trading price for the five elections that we have studied, 1992 through 2008. In each
of the three time horizons, the PollyVote was most accurate. (See Appendices 6 and 7 for
the MAEs and the error reduction of the PollyVote relative to the typical poll and the
original IEM forecasts per election year.) Also, as shown in Figure 5, on each of the 93
days prior to Election Day, the PollyVote MAE was smaller than the MAE of the typical
poll. On 55 days out of 93 days, the PollyVote was, on average, more accurate than the
IEM. On the remaining 38 days, the IEM was more accurate. Not surprisingly, the
original IEM did not achieve the PollyVote’s near perfect hit rate of 99%. Yet, IEM
accuracy was still high; on 87% of all days the IEM predicted the winner correctly.
Discussion
In this study we have shown that combined forecasts reduced error of the typical
individual forecast within each component method. Combining across methods led to
additional gains in accuracy, compared to Polls
PV
, expert forecasts, and quantitative
16
models. In addition, the PollyVote was more accurate than its best component, the
IEM
PV
, and substantially more accurate than the original uncombined IEM values.
The success of the PollyVote was achieved by simply averaging the forecasts derived from
each component method, weighting each equally. Our results supported this procedure,
since there was no component that was more accurate than the PollyVote across all five
elections. The basic message is that one should not put much faith in individual
forecasts. Combining forecasts within and across methods is preferable by far.
Figure 5: Mean absolute errors of the PollyVote, the IEM and the typical poll
(five elections from 1992 to 2008)
On average the IEM
PV
was clearly more accurate than each of the three other
components. Thus, in the future perhaps greater weight could be assigned to the IEM
PV
.
However, care must be taken not to impact Polly’s performance in predicting the correct
winner. With a hit rate of 88%, the IEM
PV
only ranked third among the four components.
The optimal weighting of the four components will be determined by further research. In
addition, we will follow future advances in election forecasting, particularly regarding
poll damping.
Further developments continue for election forecasting and they will be incorporated in
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
93
83
73
63
53
43
33
23
13
3
MAE (19922008)
Days to Election Day
IEM
Typical poll
PollyVote
17
the next PollyVote. For example, the number of models continues to grow; different
methods have been developed; and, as Erikson and Wlezien (2008) found, damping of
polls offers an opportunity. As experience is gained, differential weighting of the methods
might eventually be appropriate. However, the level of accuracy is limited by the
measurement error in the dependent variable, the vote share. Mistakes and cheating are
always present, although they are expected to be quite small in U.S. presidental elections.
However, the greatest potential lies not in reducing accuracy, but in providing forecasts
that can aid in policy decisions.
Conclusions
Election forecasting provides an ideal opportunity for combining forecasts because there
are a number of data sources and several available forecasting methods. Furthermore,
the methods produce forecast errors that are not highly correlated with one another. As a
result, the error reductions were substantially larger than those that had been reported in
prior research on combining.
The PollyVote method of combining produces accurate forecasts of U.S. presidential
elections. This approach should be applicable to predicting other elections and, more
generally, can be applied in many other contexts, as well. Given the methods available to
forecasters, combining is probably the most cost efficient way to improve forecast
accuracy and to prevent large errors.
References
Armstrong, J. S. 2001. Combining forecasts. J. S. Armstrong, ed. Principles of
Forecasting: A Handbook for Researchers and Practitioners, Kluwer, Norwell, 417439.
Berg, J. E., F. D. Nelson, T. A. Rietz. 2008. Prediction market accuracy in the long run.
Int J Forecasting 24 285300.
Erikson, R. S., C. Wlezien. 2008. Are political markets really superior to polls as election
predictors? Public Opin Quart 72 190215.
Gott , J. R., W. N. Colley. 2008. Median statistics in polling. Math Comput Model 48
18
3961408.
Jones, R. J., J. S. Armstrong, A. G. Cuzán. 2007. Forecasting elections using expert
surveys: An application to U.S. presidential elections. MPRA working paper No. 5301.
Jones, R. J., A. G. Cuzán. 2008. Forecasting U.S. presidential elections: A brief review.
Foresight Int J Appl Forecasting 2008 2934.
Larrick, R. P., J. B. Soll. 2006. Intuitions about combining opinions: Misappreciation of
the averaging principle. Manage Sci 52 111127.
Rhode, P. W., K. S. Strumpf. 2004. Historical presidential betting markets. J Econ
Perspect 18 127141.