home
Home
navigate_next
Search results
Search results
Abstract
This paper examines the process of voters' voting decision and develops a way of predicting voters' voting decision. Most surveys on election prediction are based on respondents' answers on their vote choices. However, this paper indicates two serious problems in this way of election prediction. One problem comes from the indecision of most voters, and the other problems comes from measurement errors. To deal with this problem, this paper provides a way of estimating each voter's probabilities of voting for each candidiate. The author indicates that the probability of voting for a particular candidate is not 0, neither is 1. Instead, the probability of voting for a particular candidate ranges from 0 to 1. The author bases on four major variables--candidate evaluations, party identification, incumbent government satisfaction, and ethnicity-- to construct a vote choice model, and estimates the model by way of a multinomial logit model. Then, the author calculates individual voters' probabilities of voting for each of the candidates. The research finding shows that the chance of voting for a particular candidate is large if a voter has a high probability of voting for the candidate. Based on this principle, the paper predicts the outcomes of four elections and two of them are quite accurate.
Abstract
In this paper, I use a multinomial logit model to explain how voters decided their votes in the 1996 Presidential election in Tai-wan. Generally, a voter's party identification and evaluation toward three major candidates played important roles on his or her vote choice in this election. The political climate, popularity among the four candidates and the distribution of partisans, favored President Lee Teng-hui. His maintaining economic prosperity and attraction to those middle-of-the-road voters also helped him to win this elec-tion. Both Mr. Peng Ming-min and Lin Yang-kang got their support from those with higher education and with the feeling of the nation-al economy being worse. As to voters' ethnic identity, people iden-tifying themselves as Taiwanese inclined to support Mr. Peng. However, Mr. Lin did not gain advantage from those whom with Chinese identity. On the "social welfare v. economic development" issue, respondents with being closer to "social welfare" stances tend-ed to support Mr. Peng. On the "reform v. status quo" issue, Mr. Peng's supporters came from those whose stances being closer to "reform."
