Brexit and Trump
Essay Preview: Brexit and Trump
Report this essay
Stephenson WatersMondayJan 16 at 6:29pmManage Discussion EntryBoth Brexit and Trump can be seen as expressions of populist anger, in that voters both here and abroad were upset with the status quo, and were willing to take action to voice their displeasure. Considering that, it seems reasonable that “typical” sampling procedures would fall short in accurately predicting the outcomes of these elections. In a study of polling for multiparty elections in Mexico in 2006 and 2012, Cantu et al. (2016) found that pollsters relied too much on single statistical measurements in surveys, which led to overestimates of candidate support, which then led to a failure to correctly measure systematic biases and confusion of the difference between survey bias and random error. This sounds like a plausible mistake that could be applied to both Trump and Brexit.Fowler wrote of the sample frame and selection process, and it is possible pollsters misread the political climate and sampled potential voters who did not “fit” with who would be supporting Trump or Brexit. In other words, it may be that Trump voters would not have otherwise voted for another Republican candidate, instead choosing to stay home. The pollsters instead found participants who were more “traditional” in their voting preferences, opting to hold the party lines no matter who was selected. Perhaps a over-reliance on online survey methods missed those less technologically inclined, which in turn led to a sampling bias in which those who don’t veer far from Facebook would have had an opportunity to respond to a survey (this could also help explain the face news debacle—maybe). Also, Hastorf and Cantril (1949) smartly wrote that past experience does not necessarily reflect future intention to act. So, surveys may reflect a participants’ subjective views at the time of study, but it’s somewhat short-sighted to assume that those views will hold come election day.For what it’s worth, Nate Silver (2016), the editor and head stats dude at FiveThirtyEight, was a tad penitent after Trump won the Republican nomination in May, writing that the site used a “subjective odds” format, applying numbers to their best guesses and opinions (Links to an external site.). For a news service that prides itself on data journalism and predictive prowess, this seems amazingly intellectually dishonest—they did not appear up front about their methods during the primary season. Their oft-touted election prediction model wasn’t used, so readers were misled in how accurate Trump’s chances were from the start.
ReferencesCantu, F., Hoyo, V., & Morales, M. (2016). The utility of unpacking survey bias in multiparty elections: Mexican polling firms in the 2006 and 2012 presidential elections. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 28(1), 96-116. doi:10.1093/ijpor/edv004Hastorf, A., & Cantril, H. (1949). Some psychological errors in polling, a few guides for opinion interpretation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 40(1), 57-60. doi:10.1037/h0056925Silver, N. (2016, May 18). How I acted like a pundit and screwed up on Donald Trump. FiveThirtyEight. Retrieved from