It has become a popular pastime for political pundits and scholars alike to predict the winner of the U.S. presidential election. Although forecasting has now quite a history, we argue that the closeness of recent presidential elections and the wide accessibility of data should change how presidential election forecasting is conducted. We present a Bayesian forecasting model that concentrates on the Electoral College outcome and considers finer details such as third-party candidates and self-proclaimed undecided voters. We incorporate our estimators into a dynamic programming algorithm to determine the probability that a candidate will win an election.
Abramowitz, A.I. (2004). When good forecasts go bad: The time-for-change model and the 2004 presidential election. PS: Political Science and Politics, 37, 745-746.
2.
Althaus, S.L., Nardulli, P.F., & Shaw, D.R. (2002). Candidate appearances in presidential elections . Political Communication, 19, 49-72.
3.
Belenky, A.S. (2008). The good, the bad, and the ugly: Three proposals to introduce the nationwide popular vote in U.S. presidential elections. Michigan Law Review First Impressions, 106, 110-116.
4.
Bennett, R.W. (2006). Taming the Electoral College. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
5.
Campbell, J.E. (2004). Forecasting the presidential vote in 2004: Placing preference polls in context. PS: Political Science and Politics , 37, 763-767.
6.
Campbell, J.E. (2005). Introduction-Assessments of the 2004 presidential vote forecasts. PS: Political Science and Politics, 38, 23.
7.
Converse, P. (1966). The concept of a normal vote. In A. Campbell, P. Converse , W. Miller, & D. Stokes (Eds.), Elections and the political order (pp. 9-39). New York: John Wiley .
8.
Doherty, B.J. (2007). Elections: The politics of the permanent campaign: Presidential travel and the Electoral College, 1977-2004. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 37, 749-773.
9.
Edwards, G.C. (2004). Why the Electoral College is bad for America. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
10.
Gaines, B.J. (2001). Popular myths about popular vote-Electoral College splits. PS: Political Science and Politics, 34, 70-75.
11.
Gelman, A., Katz, J.N., & Tuerlinckx, F. (2002). The mathematics and statistics of voting power. Statistical Science, 17, 420-435.
12.
Goux, D.J., & Hopkins, D.A. (2008). Empirical implications of Electoral College reform . American Politics Research, 36, 824-843.
13.
Grofman, B., Brunell, T., & Campagna, J. (1997). Distinguishing the difference between swing ratio and bias: The U.S. Electoral College. Electoral Studies, 16, 471-487.
14.
Grofman, B., & Feld, S.L. (2005). Thinking about the political impacts of the Electoral College. Public Choice, 123, 1-18.
15.
Hansen, J.M. (2008). Equal voice by half measures. Michigan Law Review First Impressions, 106, 100-105.
16.
Hiltachk, T.W. (2008). Reforming the Electoral College one state at a time. Michigan Law Review First Impressions, 106, 90-95.
17.
Hirsch, S. (2008). Awarding presidential electors by congressional district: Wrong for California, wrong for the nation. Michigan Law Review First Impressions, 106, 95-100.
18.
Holbrook, T.M. (2004). Good news for Bush? Economic news, personal finances, and the 2004 presidential election. PS: Political Science and Politics, 37, 759-761.
19.
Jackman, S., & Rivers, D. (2001). State-level election forecasting during election 2000 via dynamic Bayesian hierarchical modeling (Working Paper). Stanford, CA: Stanford University, Department of Political Science.
20.
Kaplan, E., & Barnett, A. (2003). A new approach to estimating the probability of winning the presidency. Operations Research, 51(1), 32-40.
21.
Leib, E.J., & Mark, E.J. (2008). Democratic principle and Electoral College reform . Michigan Law Review First Impressions, 106, 105-110.
22.
Lewis-Beck, M.S., & Rice, T.W. (1983). Localism in presidential elections: The home state advantage. American Journal of Political Science, 27, 548-556.
23.
Lewis-Beck, M.S., & Tien, C. (2004). Jobs and the job of president: A forecast for 2004. PS: Political Science and Politics, 37, 753-758.
24.
Lockerbie, B. (2004). A look to the future: Forecasting the 2004 presidential election. PS: Political Science and Politics, 37, 741-743.
25.
Longley, L., & Dana, J. (1992). The biases of the Electoral College in the 1990s . Polity, 25, 123-145.
26.
Nardulli, P.F. (2005). Popular efficacy in the democratic era: A re-examination of electoral accountability in the United States, 1828-2000. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
27.
Norpoth, H. (2004). From primary to general election: A forecast of the presidential vote. PS: Political Science and Politics , 37, 737-740.
28.
Rae, D.W. (1972). Political consequences of electoral laws. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
29.
Rathbun, D.P. (2008). Ideological endowment: The staying power of the Electoral College and the weaknesses of the national popular vote interstate compact. Michigan Law Review First Impressions, 106, 117-122.
30.
Shaw, D.R. (2006). The race to 270. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
31.
Stokes, D.E. (1962). Party loyalty and the likelihood of deviating elections. Journal of Politics, 24, 689-702.
32.
Tokaji, D.P. (2008). An unsafe harbor: Recounts, contests, and the Electoral College. Michigan Law Review First Impressions, 106, 84-88.
33.
Whitaker, L.P., & Neale, T.H. (2004). The Electoral College: An overview and analysis of reform proposals (Tech. Rep. RL30804). Washington, DC : Congressional Research Service.
34.
Wlezien, C., & Erikson, R.S. (2004). The fundamentals, the polls, and the presidential vote. PS: Political Science and Politics, 37, 747-751.
