1 / 27

Compared to what?

Compared to what?. Jeanine Meyer Mathematics/Computer Science & New Media Natural Sciences 3003. 4 D's. Definition Denominator (out of what), definition of denominator, absolute value Difference (compared to what, what's the difference) Distribution. Topics relating to voting.

dakota
Télécharger la présentation

Compared to what?

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Compared to what? Jeanine Meyer Mathematics/Computer Science & New Media Natural Sciences 3003

  2. 4 D's • Definition • Denominator (out of what), definition of denominator, absolute value • Difference (compared to what, what's the difference) • Distribution

  3. Topics relating to voting • Youth voting • Claims for big increase for primaries for 2008 • Colbert Bump • Claims that appearing on the Comedy show gives candidates 'a bump'

  4. Comment • Predictions about voting done in terms of demographics • Stereotypes: you are a certain gender, race, ethnicity, age and so you will vote …. • Unfortunately, some truth to this but, not completely. • Microtargeting • http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/16/dining/16voters.html What's for Dinner? The Pollster Wants to Know • Look at You Might Be … • Keep in mind that the consultants [may] need something to say

  5. Categories / Populations • Assignment to categories may be problematic • Life is more complex • Example: news story from August, 2007Women in their 20s out-earning Men in NYC (median 117%) • Example: news reports (predictions) on voting in places like Florida

  6. About women vs men • Two populations • 53% of these women were college graduates compared to 38% of men!! • In each category, men still out-earning women • SIGH • But…college educated women outearning men without college degrees AND there are more of them.

  7. Florida • Very complex situation • Older native residents versus 'snow birds' • Cubans versus other Latinos • North west (panhandle) versus specific industries (space, Disneyworld,etc.) mid-state versus Miami versus … • Western part of State is in different time zone. Polls close later!

  8. US Time zones

  9. How is something [actually] measured? Not bad • Exit polls • Ask people leaving the polls (so it is pretty definite they did vote) how they voted • Ask or guess demographics, issues • Extrapolate from voting district • Note: after the results are in, people tend to say they voted with the winner. • Federal Election Commission data • Legally required and available ($200 and up?) Better

  10. Polling • Pick a random sample of people (in the category to be studied) • Any person in the population equally likely to be asked • Ask them the question • Can make prediction about general population, within … • Margin of error • Confidence level

  11. Mathematics • The distribution of the fractions of samples is more tightly distributed than the views of the general population. • Still….it is possible to get a outlier (extreme) sample. • Typical statement is: we are 95% confident that the actual result (say percentage of people saying they will vote X) is within the margin of error (this is a number they calculate, say 3-4 points) of our finding P.

  12. Consider • Flipping a fair coin many times • 100. • Fraction of heads will be close to half • 50 • But you wouldn't be surprised if it was slightly off • 47, 48, 49, or 51, 52, … • You would be surprised if it was way off • 80, 90?? • But this could happen! • Statistical analysis gives the margin of error and the chances of it happening

  13. Note for PA primary • The polling results may be within margin of error. • The pollsters also should make assessment of who will actually vote. • Most people don't vote, but many will not tell that to the pollster. • Many new registrations / switches • Most polls have been accurate, if the full information is given. The news media sometimes mis-states information before and afterwards.

  14. Youth voting • Youth? • Typically, 18 to 30, but sometimes 17 to 24, 30… • Historically, [very] low levels of voting • NOTE: • historically, voting participation in USA is low across the age distribution compared to other places • Primaries [much] worse than general elections • Off years much worse than presidential years

  15. Gold standard of testing • Double-blind • Randomized • Exact measurements, classifications • Appropriate, adequate time intervals Sometimes not possible!

  16. What is the denominator Measure by dividing actual voting Registered voters Voter eligible population (this would not include people in jail, felons, illegal immigrants, people on the move) Voter age population http://elections.gmu.edu/Voter_Turnout_2008_Primaries.htm Comparison to previous years?

  17. Youth voting In place of (youth voters) divided by (total youth population) or something similar Youth vote versus total voting Gives comparison (what's the difference) with 2004) http://pewresearch.org/pubs/730/young-voters

  18. Interpret results • Chart does not say anything about turnout. • These results COULD come about because older folks stayed home. • In fact, 2008 primaries had record turnouts. • But youth increase was even more…..

  19. Colbert Bump James Fowler, UCSD, The Colbert Bump in Campaign Donations: More Truthful than Truthy, http://jhfowler.ucsd.edu/colbert_bump.pdf • Appeared to be present for John Hall, successful challenger for NY 19. • Colbert experience was very enjoyable for candidate, staff and volunteers • How to evaluate? • Can't arrange a double-blind test or cloning the candidate and comparing

  20. Selection bias • Maybe candidates who agree to go on the show are better candidates • Maybe candidates that are invited to go on the show are better candidates • Does Colbert want to boost specific candidates? • Does Colbert want a good show?

  21. Fowler approach • Systematic procedure for identifying a match for each person that did appear on the Colbert show • Party (note: more Democrats than Republicans) • Incumbency: compare incumbents with incumbents, and challengers with challengers • Same or similar amount of funds raised at time of appearance

  22. Fowler approach continued • Compare average number of donations and dollar amounts for time periods before and afterwards • Note: Use FEC data • Absolutely and also as • Use statistical tests to evaluate significance of results • This does not remove effects of selection bias, but indicates if there is a difference • Significant difference is one that is unlikely (say, less than 1/20 of arising from chance)

  23. Results • Democrats yes! • Note: Democrats who chose to participate generally were not doing as well • Advantage was at significant level • Republicans no! • Appears to be opposite effect, but not statistically significant • Note: Republicans who chose to participate generally were doing well

  24. Recommend • Read paper—very clear, and funny • Problem required (requires) inventive analysis

  25. Predictions? • Tomorrow in Pennsylvania • Results vs • Expectations • "Buy on the rumor, sell on the news." • Nomination • Election

  26. Summary • Definition(s) • Denominator • What's the Difference • Compared to what • Distribution

More Related