1 / 21

Scenarios for the 2010 General Election: Mixed Logit Models of Party Choice

Scenarios for the 2010 General Election: Mixed Logit Models of Party Choice. Harold Clarke David Sanders Marianne Stewart Paul Whiteley. Premier Prognosticator!. Fearless Forecaster! (Only Does One-tailed Tests). Not So Long Ago. But Now! March 15th YouGov Poll.

fiona
Download Presentation

Scenarios for the 2010 General Election: Mixed Logit Models of Party Choice

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. Scenarios for the 2010 General Election: Mixed Logit Models of Party Choice Harold Clarke David Sanders Marianne Stewart Paul Whiteley

  2. Premier Prognosticator!

  3. Fearless Forecaster!(Only Does One-tailed Tests)

  4. Not So Long Ago

  5. But Now!March 15th YouGov Poll

  6. Modeling Party Choice: What Mixed Logit Models Can Do • Structure of Choice: Multiple Choices and Varying Choice Sets • Theory: Heterogeneity in effects of predictor variables • Possible Consequences of varying choices for election outcomes, e.g., what happens to Conservative vote shares if UKIP/BNP candidates are/are not running

  7. Mixed Logit Model P(j|vi) = exp(Uji)/Σexp(Uji) Utility of party choice j for voter i: Uji = αji + ΒjΧi + ΦjZji + ΘjiWji where: αji = alternative-specific constant (fixed or varying) Βj = vector of fixed coefficients Χi = fixed individual characteristics Φj = vector of fixed coefficients Θj = vector of varying coefficients Zji & Wji = choice-varying attributes of choices

  8. MXL ModelSpecification & Analysis • analyze valence model of party choice -Political Choice in Britain; Performance Politics and the British Voter; Making Political Choices: Canada and the United States • BES CMS Data – Jan 2009 – Jan 2010 • data available from BES website: http://bes2009-10.org • MXL analyzes using NLOGIT 3.0 (Greene 2003)

  9. Valence Politics Model: Key Predictor Variables • Party Best on (Valence) Issues • Party Identification (Dynamic) • Party Leader Images (Key Heuristic) • Demographic Controls – Age, Gender, Income, Social Class • Party Best – Random Parameter (Log Normal Distribution) with Performance Evaluation Covariates

  10. Table 1. MXL Model of Party Choice, Key Parameters Characteristics of Choices B Party Best Handle Most Important Issue 1.30*** Characteristics of Choosers Liberal ConservativeDemocrat BB Brown Affect -0.68*** -0.45*** Cameron Affect 0.87*** 0.05* Clegg Affect -0.15*** 0.48*** Party Identification: Labour 3.06*** 0.32 Conservative -2.53*** -1.92*** Liberal Democrat -0.45* 2.41*** UKIP/BNP 0.50 0.03 Other Parties -1.94*** -0.01 McFadden R2 =.66, % correctly predicted = 74.5, lambda = .59, N = 13345 *** - p < .001; ** - p < .01; * - p < .05

  11. Table 2. MXL Model of Party Choice,Heterogeneity in Effects of Party Best on Most Important Issue δs.e. Standard Deviation in Party Best Coefficient 0.88*** 0.30 Accounting for Heterogeneity Impact of Economic Evaluation Factor on Party Best Coefficient -0.08* 0.04 Impact of Public Service Delivery Factor on Party Best Coefficient -0.06x 0.04 *** - p < .001; ** - p < .01; * - p < .05; x - p < .10

  12. Cameron Effect

  13. Brown Effect

  14. Feb CMS Data Scenario

  15. Labour Wins Campaign: Issues

  16. Labour Wins Campaign: Issues and Brown as Popular as Blair in 2005

  17. Conclusions I • MXL Models Confirm Earlier Analyses of Party Choice in 2001 and 2005 • Party Leader Images, Party Best on Most Important Issue, Partisanship & Issue-Party Proximities are the "Great Beasts" • Model heterogeneity in effects of party best on most important issue, econmic evaluations factor as covariate – negative effect (Bloom and Price)

  18. Conclusions II – Scenarios(Ceteris Paribus!) • Pure Leader Affect Scenarios – Cameron and Brown must reach 5.5 to get/thwart majority government. • Feb CMS Data Scenario: Conservatives 42.7%, Labour 26.3% -> Conservative majority • Labour Wins Issue Campaign: Conservatives 40.3%, Labour 32.4% -> thin ice! • Labour Wins Issue Campaign & Brown as popular as Blair in 2005: Conservatives 38.3% and Labour 35.5%-> hung parliament

  19. Questions?

  20. References Clarke, Harold D., Allan Kornberg and Thomas Scotto. 2009. Making Political Choices. Canada and the United States. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Clarke, Harold D., David Sanders, Marianne C. Stewart and Paul F. Whiteley. 2004. Political Choice in Britain. Oxford: Oxford University Press. _____.2009. Performance Politics and the British Voter. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Glasgow, Garrett. 2001. "Mixed Logit Models for Multiparty Elections." Political Analysis. 9:116-36. Greene, William H. 2002. NLOGIT Version 3.0 Reference Guide. Plainview, N.Y.: Econometric Software, Inc. Hensher, David A., John M. Rose and William H. Greene. 2005. Applied Choice Analysis: A Primer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Train, Kenneth E. Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  21. Lognormal Distribution, X > 0, where µ = 0, σ = 1 for the log of X

More Related