Title

三種投票日當天選舉預測方法之績效評估

Translated Titles

Performance Evaluation: Three Methods of Election Prediction on Election Day

Authors

柯達昱

Key Words

選舉預測 ; 績效評估 ; 政治版圖 ; 典型鄉鎮 ; 典型村里 ; 出口民調 ; election prediction ; performance evaluation ; political map ; typical township ; typical village ; exit poll

PublicationName

臺灣大學政治學研究所學位論文

Volume or Term/Year and Month of Publication

2009年

Academic Degree Category

碩士

Advisor

洪永泰

Content Language

繁體中文

Chinese Abstract

選舉預測是選舉研究者極感興趣的議題之一,過去台灣對於選舉預測的研究多集中在以民意調查結果來進行預測工作,然受到選罷法規定選前十天禁止發佈民調結果,在民意易受到短期競選事件影響下,採用民調結果進行選舉預測工作有其侷限性存在,因而衍生出了投票日當天的選舉預測方法,從實務經驗中證實了該方法有其預測的準確性,然而在學術研究領域中卻是付之闕如。 是以,本文針對政治版圖估票模式、典型鄉鎮或典型村里以及出口民調三種投票日當天選舉預測方法進行探討。引介其概念界定、源流與執行流程,並對於實際進行選舉預測的經驗進行評述,針對其預測準確性、選舉適用性與樣本代表性進行績效評估,亦對於影響預測表現準確性的因素提出解釋,並嘗試提供解決之道。 本文發現,政治版圖估票模式與出口民調不論在準確性、適用性與代表性等績效評估的面向中皆有相當良好的表現,乃是因其具備了完善的抽樣設計與統計方法保護所致,兩種方法各有其學術研究上之意涵存在,是為日後在進行選舉預測時可茲採用的方法;而典型鄉鎮或典型村里雖在選舉預測時亦有其準確性,然卻難以由人為控制其預測表現,且本文亦證實預測準確之因並非由於人口結構一致所致,僅只能將該鄉鎮或村里視為是具有政黨支持程度的代表性。 此外就方法論上,本文建議政治版圖估票模式可採用PPS抽樣與實際得票率的估計的方式取代現有以等距抽樣與用平均得票率估計的方法,預測時會較為準確與合乎邏輯;出口民調則是各投開票所成功樣本數應達五十個樣本數以上以降低抽樣誤差,並建議參照國外立法例,將出口民調的執行納入法規範之下;再者,本文亦嘗試結合政治版圖估票模式與出口民調,建議執行出口民調時可採用政治版圖估票模式的抽樣設計,藉以降低人力與物力成本之耗費。

English Abstract

This paper is intended as an investigation of election prediction, one of the most interesting topics by scholars. So far, related studies in Taiwan have been concentrated on the method of public opinion survey. However, under the law of election and recall, which prohibits publishing the result of survey during the ten days before Election Day, the method is limited substantially because public opinion are more easily manipulated in the last days of the campaign. To improve the accuracy of predictions, another method, prediction based on the Election Day, has proved its capability by empirical experience but lacks further research. Given the circumstances, the purpose of this paper is to explore the three methods available to the analyzer – political map, typical township or typical village, and exit polls- based on Election Day. Thus, according to the conception, inception and procedure used in these three main methods, we examine the performance of each prediction in terms of its accuracy, applicability and sample representativeness. Furthermore, we attempt to explain the reasons that cause different predictability and provide various solutions. The main finding of this paper is that the political map and exit polls, which incorporated sampling design and statistical methodology, proved to be effective in many aspects. Thus, the methods are capable of application in the future and worthy of further studies. In spite of the good performance of typical township and typical village methods in the prediction of elections, it is difficult to manipulate and design the whole procedure. Also, the outcome of typical village does not result from the consistency of population structure but from the representativeness of party support. For methodology, we suggest that it would be more precise and logical in the prediction with political maps when PPS sampling and estimation by the actual rate of ballot are adopted rather than systematic sampling and estimation by the average rate of ballot. Furthermore, we suggest that the exit poll ought to reach more than fifty samples for each poll to lower the sampling error. The execution of exit poll should under the regulation by law, which could draw on foreign legislation. A combination of the two methods would mean less manpower and resources devoted as the sampling design of political map could be introduced into the use of exit poll.

Topic Category 社會科學院 > 政治學研究所
社會科學 > 政治學
Reference
  1. 朱雲漢,2004,〈臺灣民主發展的困境與挑戰〉,《臺灣民主季刊》,1(1):143-162。
    連結:
  2. Earl Babbie, The Practice of Social Research, 8th ed.. Belmont:Wadsworth.
    連結:
  3. 洪永泰,2003,〈原始樣本、替代樣本、與追蹤樣本的比較:「2001年台灣選舉與民主化調查研究」訪問失敗問題的探討〉,《選舉研究》,10(2):37-58。
    連結:
  4. 范凌嘉,1999,《台灣縣市長選舉預測模型之研究:一個基礎模型的建立及其應用》,台北:國立政治大學政治學研究所碩士論文。
    連結:
  5. 徐永明,2001,〈政治版圖—兩個選舉行為研究途徑的對話〉,《問題與研究》,40(2):95-115。
    連結:
  6. 盛治仁,2004,〈媒體、民調和議題--談競選過程中民意的變動性和穩定性〉,《選舉研究》,11(1):73-98。
    連結:
  7. 蘇建州,2002,〈臺灣2000年總統選舉民調之準確度評量與影響因素分析〉,《調查研究》,12:91-109。
    連結:
  8. Biemer, Paul, Ralph Folsom, Richard Kulka, Judith Lessler, Babu Shah and Michael Weeks. 2003. “An Evaluation of Procedures and Operations Used by the Voter News Service For the 2000 Presidential Election.” Public Opinion Quarterly 67(1):32-44.
    連結:
  9. Bishop, George F. and Bonnie S. Fisher. 1995. “"Secret Ballots" and Self-Reports in an Exit-Poll Experiment.” Public Opinion Quarterly 59(4):568-588.
    連結:
  10. Busch, Ronald J. and Joel A. Lieske. 1985. “Does Time of Voting Affect Exit Poll Results?” Public Opinion Quarterly 49(1):94-104.
    連結:
  11. Bautista, Rene, Mario Callegaro, Jose Alberto Vera and Francisco Abundis. 2005. “Nonresponse in Exit Poll Methodology: A Case in Mexico.” Paper presented at the meeting of the American Association for Public Opinion Research, Proceedings of the Section on Survey Research Method, American Statistical Association, 3802-3809.
    連結:
  12. Campbell, Angus, Philip E. Converse, Warren E. Miller, and Donald E. Stokes. 1960. The American Voter. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
    連結:
  13. Crewe, Ivor. 1997. “The Opinion Polls: Confidence Restored?” Parliamentary Affairs 50(4):569-585.
    連結:
  14. Fienberg, Stephen E. 2007. “Memories of Election Night Predictions Past: Psephologists and Statisticians at Work.” Chance 20(4):8-17.
    連結:
  15. Grimshaw, Scott D., Howard B. Christensen, David B. Magleby and Kelly D. Patterson. 2004. “Twenty Years of the Utah Colleges Exit Poll: Learning by Doing.” Chance 17(2):32-38.
    連結:
  16. Hansen, Morris H. and William N. Hurwitz. 1943. “On the Theory of Sampling from Finite Populations.” The Annals of Mathematical Statistics 14(4):333-362.
    連結:
  17. Levy, Mark R. 1983. “The Methodology and Performance of Election Day Polls.” Public Opinion Quarterly 47(1):54-67.
    連結:
  18. Lewis-Beck, M. S. and T. W. Rice. 1992. Forecasting Elections. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly.
    連結:
  19. Little, Roderick J. A. and Donald B. Rubin. 1987. Statistical Analysis with Missing Data. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
    連結:
  20. Mitofsky, Warren J.. 1991. “A Short History of Exit Polls.” in Polling and Presidential Elections Coverage. ed. Paul J. Lavrakas and Jack K. Holley. Newbury Park: Sage, 83-99.
    連結:
  21. Mitofsky, Warren J.. 1998.”The Polls—Review: Was 1996 a Worse Year for Polls Than 1948? ” Public Opinion Quarterly 62(2):230-249.
    連結:
  22. Mosteller, Frederick, Herbert Hyman, Philip J. McCarthy, Eli S. Marks and David B. Turman. 1949. The Pre-election Polls of 1948. New York: Social Science Research Council.
    連結:
  23. Nutley, S. and S. P. Osborne. 1994. The Public Sector Management Handbook. Harlow: Longman.
    連結:
  24. Sudman, Seymour. 1986. “Do Exit Polls Influence Voting Behavior?” Public Opinion Quarterly 50(3):331-339.
    連結:
  25. Traugott, Michael W. and Vincent Price. 1992. “A Review: Exit Polls in the 1989 Virginia Gubernatorial Race: Where Did They Go Wrong?” Public Opinion Quarterly 56(2):245-253.
    連結:
  26. 壹、中文部分
  27. 王石番,1995,《民意理論與實務》,台北:黎明文化事業公司。
  28. 丘昌泰,1998,《政策科學之理論與實際—美國與臺灣經驗》,台北:五南圖書出版公司。
  29. 丘昌泰、陳金貴,1998,《各機關績效考核制度之研究》,台北:考試院銓敘部。
  30. 行政院主計處編,1988,《中華民國政府統計名詞定義》,台北:行政院主計處。
  31. 李美華等譯,1998,《社會科學研究方法(下)》,台北:時英出版社。譯自
  32. 李錦河、溫敏杰,1999,〈從行銷學「產品屬性」角度建構「選民需求指標」選舉預測模式—以1997年台南市市長選舉為例〉,《選舉研究》,5(2):1-33。
  33. 邱皓政,2004,《量化研究與統計分析—SPSS中文視窗版資料分析範例解析》,台北:五南圖書出版公司。
  34. 林惠玲、陳正倉,2002,《應用統計學》,台北:雙葉書廊。
  35. 洪永泰,1989,〈抽樣調查中訪問失敗問題的處理〉,《社會科學論叢》,37:33-52。
  36. 洪永泰,1994,〈選舉預測:一個以整體資料為輔助工具的模型〉,《選舉研究》,1(1):93-110。
  37. 洪永泰,2000,〈選舉預測模型適用性的探討〉,梁世武編,《民調、策略、廣告與選舉預測論文集》,台北:世新大學民意調查研究中心,頁145-170。
  38. 洪永泰,2004,〈典型鄉鎮快速估票〉,中國時報,3/20,A15。
  39. 徐火炎,2001,〈一九九八年二屆台北市長選舉選民投票行為之分析:選民的黨派抉擇與分裂投票〉,《東吳政治學報》,13:77-127。
  40. 盛治仁,2006,〈台灣首次總統選舉出口民調探討—我們學到了什麼?〉,梁世武編,《政治傳播與競選策略》,台北:五南圖書出版公司,頁3-28。
  41. 張世仁,2001,《政治版圖之強度與穩定度分析:以台北縣1995年、1998年、2001年立法委員選舉為例》,台北:國立政治大學政治學研究所碩士論文。
  42. 莊文忠,2000,〈選舉預測與策略性投票:以八十九年總統選舉為例〉,《理論與政策》,14(2):55-91。
  43. 梁世武,1995,〈選舉預測—臺灣經驗之研究(一九八四—一九九五)〉,《立法院院聞月刊》,23(11):12-30。
  44. 屠乃瑋,1998,〈臺北市長選舉EXIT POLL的省思--一個學與術的交集〉,《新聞鏡週刊》,529:13-15。
  45. 陳義彥,1994,〈我國選民的集群分析及其投票傾向的預測—從民國八十一年立委選舉探討〉,《選舉研究》,1(1):1-37。
  46. 黃偉峰,1996,〈解讀美國總統大選之預測〉,《美歐月刊》,11(12):93-121。
  47. 彭基原,2004,〈鶯歌報曉天下知〉,《新新聞》,1098A:68-71。
  48. 鄭自隆,2006,〈2004年台灣總統大選媒體表現檢討—社會責任觀點〉,梁世武編,《政治傳播與競選策略》,台北:五南圖書出版公司,頁75-107。
  49. 劉念夏,2000,〈一九九七年縣市長選舉預測方法之比較—最多形象評分法(VI)、政治版圖亞當法(ADAM)、以及洛基模型預測法(LOGIT)〉,梁世武編,《民調、策略、廣告與選舉預測論文集》,台北:世新大學民意調查研究中心,頁195-300。
  50. 劉念夏,2001,〈台灣地區選舉預測研究的知識脈絡(上):學科生產的知識典範〉,「兩岸知識經濟與社會發展研討會」論文(10月21日),台北:中華兩岸論壇協進會。
  51. 鍾庭耀,2004,〈台灣應該發展票站調查〉,香港大學民意網站網頁,http://hkupop.hku.hk/chinese/columns/columns68_2.html,點選日期2008/04/29
  52. 貳、英文部分
  53. AAPOR. “Explaining Exit Polls.” http://www.aapor.org/explainingexitpolls.
  54. Cochran, W. G.. 1992. Sampling Techniques. New York N.J.: John Wiley and Sons.
  55. Crespi, Irving. 1988. Pre-election Polling. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
  56. Mitofsky, Warren J. and Edelman Murray. 2002. “Election Night Estimation.” Journal of Official Statistics 18(2):165-179.
  57. Scheaffer, Richard L., William Mendenhall and Lyman Ott. 1990. Elementary Survey Sampling. 4th ed.. Boston: PWS-KENT Publishing Company.
  58. Scheuren, Fritz J. and Wendy Alvey. 2008. Elections and Exit Polling. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Times Cited
  1. 許育誌(2011)。應用集群分析於台灣政治版圖之研究─以十一屆至十三屆總統選舉為例。政治大學統計研究所學位論文。2011。1-73。