Within this paper we develop and apply new methodology adequately including undecided voters for the 2021 German federal election. Due to a cooperation with the polling institute Civey, we are in the fortunate position to obtain data in which undecided voters can state all the options they are still pondering between. In contrast to conventional polls, forcing the undecided to either state a single party or to drop out, this design allows the undecided to provide their current position in an accurate and precise way. The resulting set-valued information can be used to examine structural properties of groups undecided between specific parties as well as to improve election forecasting. For forecasting, this partial information provides valuable additional knowledge, and the uncertainty induced by the participants' ambiguity can be conveyed within interval-valued results. Turning to coalitions of parties, which is in the core of the current public discussion in Germany, some of this uncertainty can be dissolved as the undecided provide precise information on corresponding coalitions. We show structural differences between the decided and undecided with discrete choice models as well as elaborate the discrepancy between the conventional approach and our new ones including the undecided. Our cautious analysis further demonstrates that in most cases the undecideds' eventual decisions are pivotal which coalitions could hold a majority of seats. Overall, accounting for the populations' ambiguity leads to more credible results and paints a more holistic picture of the political landscape, pathing the way for a possible paradigmatic shift concerning the adequate inclusion of undecided voters in pre-election polls.
翻译:由于与Civey投票机构的合作,我们幸运地获得数据,使未决定选民能够说明他们之间仍然在思考的所有选择。与传统的民意测验相比,这种设计使得未决定者能够以准确和准确的方式提供他们目前的立场。由此产生的定值信息可用于审查特定政党之间未决定的团体的结构性质以及改进选举预测。为了预测,这种部分信息提供了宝贵的额外知识,而参与者的模糊性所造成的不确定性可以在定期估值的结果中表达。转向党派联盟,这是德国目前公开讨论的核心,这种不确定性的某些部分可以被解冻,因为未决定者可以准确和准确地提供相应的联盟的准确信息。我们用分解的选民选择模式来显示决定和未决定的选民结构差异,并阐明常规方法与我们新的选举方式之间的差异,包括未确定多数选举结果的不准确性。我们进行谨慎的分析进一步表明,在最终的领导层中,可能出现一个更准确的、最不可信的选举结果。