Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14279/11069
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorTsapatsoulis, Nicolas-
dc.contributor.authorAgathokleous, Marilena-
dc.date.accessioned2018-05-29T11:33:29Z-
dc.date.available2018-05-29T11:33:29Z-
dc.date.issued2017-09-
dc.identifier.citation11th ECPR General Conference, 2017,Universitetet i Oslo, Oslo, Norway, 6-9 Septemberen_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14279/11069-
dc.description.abstractIn many Voting Advice Applications (VAAs) a supplementary question concerning the voting intention of a VAA user is included. The data that are collected through this question can serve a variety of purposes; election forecast being one of them. However, it appears that the majority of VAA users who answer this question select safe choices such as “I prefer not to say” and “I am undecided”. In this study we investigate: (i) at what degree we can predict, with the aid of machine learning techniques, the voting intention of the above-mentioned users using as input their choices in the VAA policy statements, and (ii) whether there is any difference between the population of users who select “I prefer not to say” and those who select “I am undecided”. The results of our study show that we can predict voting intention with accuracy higher than 60%, supposed that sufficient training examples for each party that participates in the elections exist so as to model each party users. Also, it appears that there is significant difference on the distribution per party for the users who select “I prefer not to say” and those who select “I am undecided”. As a consequence of these findings one would suggest that for effective election forecast it is required to (a) distribute the VAA users who select the previously mentioned choices in the voting intention question in a more sophisticated and intelligent way than that followed in traditional poll methods, and (b) the VAA users who select each one of those choices should handled separately.en_US
dc.formatpdfen_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.subjectElectionsen_US
dc.subjectInterneten_US
dc.subjectMethodsen_US
dc.titleVoting Intention: 'I prefer not to say' versus 'I am undecided'en_US
dc.typeConference Papersen_US
dc.collaborationCyprus University of Technologyen_US
dc.subject.categoryElectrical Engineering - Electronic Engineering - Information Engineeringen_US
dc.countryCyprusen_US
dc.subject.fieldEngineering and Technologyen_US
dc.publicationPeer Revieweden_US
cut.common.academicyear2017-2018en_US
item.fulltextNo Fulltext-
item.cerifentitytypePublications-
item.grantfulltextnone-
item.openairecristypehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_c94f-
item.openairetypeconferenceObject-
item.languageiso639-1en-
crisitem.author.deptDepartment of Communication and Marketing-
crisitem.author.deptDepartment of Communication and Internet Studies-
crisitem.author.facultyFaculty of Communication and Media Studies-
crisitem.author.facultyFaculty of Communication and Media Studies-
crisitem.author.orcid0000-0002-6739-8602-
crisitem.author.parentorgFaculty of Communication and Media Studies-
crisitem.author.parentorgFaculty of Communication and Media Studies-
Appears in Collections:Δημοσιεύσεις σε συνέδρια /Conference papers or poster or presentation
CORE Recommender
Show simple item record

Page view(s) 50

414
Last Week
1
Last month
10
checked on May 9, 2024

Google ScholarTM

Check


Items in KTISIS are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.