Pollster.com

Articles and Analysis

 

Time/SRBI: Another Take on Modeling Likely Voters

Topics: Likely Voters , Mark Schulman , Mike McDonald , Time/SRBI

Are all "likely voter" models created equally? Not at all.

Case in point, the comment left yesterday by George Mason University political science Professor Michael McDonald about the latest Time/SRBI poll:

Continuing my war on likely voter models...

Here we have 808 "Registered Likely Voters." Q1 reports 100% of the sample is registered and Q2 reports 90% are "definitely" going to vote and 10% "probably." I guess this means that registered likely voters must have to respond affirmatively to being registered and "definitely" or "probably" to voting. This is different from Gallup, which requires likely voters to have a past history of voting and to express an interest in the campaign. There is no indication of weighting in this survey, so who knows what it going on there.

If I am correct, then this two-question likely voter model seems less biased against young voters and less volatile due to changing interest. This may explain the stability since June in this poll compared with the USAToday/Gallup poll.

Mike's theory seemed plausible, so I sent an email to Mark Schulman, CEO of Abt SRBI, the firm that conducts the Time poll. Here is his full response:

Mike, the Time sample is indeed weighted based upon the entire cross-section sample, as are most election surveys. We retain demographics for the entire sample, registered or not, and weight the entire cross-section sample on the usual Census demographic variables. The 100% you cite is the total of self-reported registered voters who are then asked about likelihood to vote. It does not include unregistered screen outs, who skip straight to the weighting demographics. I see that this can cause confusion. I'm glad that you requested this clarification.

You are correct in that we are not currently using past vote in our model. My objective in the pre-convention polling is to be fairly inclusive in the voter model until after the nominating conventions, when the campaigning starts in earnest. We're likely being a bit too inclusive with the light voter screen, but this still improves upon reporting based upon registered voters. Research on models which include "interest in campaign" and related questions finds variability in the composition of the likely voter profile during early campaign period, leading to some volatility in the estimate. This volatility is reduced as the election approaches.

We always tighten the model a notch after the nominating conventions. To be perfectly honest, I don't claim to have all the answers at this point on which approach we will use to tighten the model. I'm concerned about the likely influx of new voters, young voters, newly registered voters, newly activated voters. In 2004, we had an increase in turnout, even with an incumbent whose job rating was still just below 50% at that time. I don't have a fix at the moment on what to expect in 2008. Our plan is to consult with several leading experts in turnout models later this month and then make some decisions on which approach to take on our turnout model and targets. We're not wedded to any one approach. FYI, for internal purposes, we do break out our horse-race data by likelihood to vote to gauge the impact of smaller vs. larger turnouts.

I do wish to emphasize that we should not strictly abide by past turnout percentages reported by the U.S. Census. Our landline telephone universe is smaller than the Census CPS universe because of undercoverage. Therefore, our target turnout number will be higher than Census turnout trend data would suggest.

Thank you again for requesting this clarification.

If all of this detail confuses you, here is the short version: The Gallup Likely voter model, as applied to the last two USA Today/Gallup polls, uses self-reports of past voting and interest in the election to help identify "likely voters" (in addition to questions about registration and intent to vote). In surveys conducted before the conventions, the Time/SRBI poll does not -- it uses only questions about registration and intent to vote.

Update: Although the Time/SRBI poll uses a simplified likely voter model that should produce less volatility, their sample of registered voters managed to include an even smaller percentage of 18-to-29-year-olds (9% - see QF1) than the "likely voters" in the USA Today/Gallup survey (10%) discussed earlier, and six points fewer than the self-ID'd registered voters in the Gallup survey (15%).

 

Comments

My thanks both to Mark Blumenthal for following up on my post and to Mark Schulman for concentiously responding. I'm glad to see that my intuition about the differences in the USAToday/Gallup and TIME/SRBI likely voter models proved correct. I hope that other survey organizations will be more forthcoming in their likely voter models so that those of us who consume the information can better interpret the polls' meaning.

And if Mark is going to highlight my posts, I see I am going to have to start typing into a text editor before posting.

____________________

cinnamonape:

It'd be interesting to see the results from those who are were unregistered and who were definitely intent on voting or interested in the campaign.

If these varied significantly from the registered voters then there could be issues with the surveys as predictors if a Candidate was especially appealing to first-time (young or previously discouraged or ineligible voters).

It would also seem to me that once registration deadlines pass in a state the issue may be moot. But before that point many people defer registration. For example, a freshman college student just out of HS may not register until at college, rather than at home [My understanding is that young voter numbers have actually increased over the past few elections, but percentages of total electorate were muted because other demographics also were targeted].

People considering moving to a new address may defer registering until the move is complete. Some people don't register until they actually are approached, they are too busy to go to a post office or DMV to pick up the forms.

I wonder if there is data available on the differentials in previous campaigns on Statewide shifts in polling results after major voter Registration efforts or Registration deadlines. Is there a bump or shift?

It seems to me that ignoring first-time voters goes against the actual practice of the parties to either a) increase registration/turnout of first time voters, or b) inhibit processes or procedures that make easy/late registration possible. If new registrants didn't vote...then why bother?

____________________



Post a comment




Please be patient while your comment posts - sometimes it takes a minute or two. To check your comment, please wait 60 seconds and click your browser's refresh button. Note that comments with three or more hyperlinks will be held for approval.

MAP - US, AL, AK, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, HI, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, MT, NE, NV, NH, NJ, NM, NY, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, VA, WA, WV, WI, WY, PR