Advertisement

Quality & Quantity

, Volume 53, Issue 4, pp 1859–1874 | Cite as

Estimation of voter transitions and the ecological fallacy

  • Antonio ForcinaEmail author
  • Davide Pellegrino
Article
  • 64 Downloads

Abstract

This paper attempts an investigation into the features of ecological fallacy in the context of estimation of voter transitions between two elections. After reviewing some theoretical findings from a statistical point of view, we discuss two tools for checking whether bias is present: (1) fitting models with covariates; (2) comparing the standard errors of transition probabilities computed under ideal conditions against those based on bootstrap methods. Concerning the effect of covariates, we describe two different data generating mechanisms, depending on whether voting decisions are affected by variables measured at the (1) aggregate or (2) the individual level. By theoretical arguments and empirical evidence, we show that, while modelling the effect of covariates removes bias in the first case, it may fail in the second because only aggregate level covariates are usually available. Our investigation relies on the analysis of real and artificial data sets: the latter are obtained by a computer software which mimics voting behaviour and is such that, artificial electoral data with designed size and direction of ecological bias can be produced. An application to a recent election in the city of Turin is also used to illustrate our methodology and findings.

Keywords

Ecological bias Effects of covariates Voting transitions Bootstrap 

Notes

Acknowledgement

We would like to thank Paolo Natale, Luana Russo and Lorenzo De Sio for comments and suggestions.

Supplementary material

11135_2019_845_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (48 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 49 kb)
11135_2019_845_MOESM2_ESM.docx (45 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (DOCX 46 kb)

References

  1. Brown, P.J., Payne, C.D.: Aggregate data, ecological regression, and voting transitions. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 81, 452–460 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Chambers, R.L., Steel, D.G.: Simple methods for ecological inference in \(2\times 2\) tables. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. A (Stat. Soc.) 164(1), 175–192 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Efron, B., Tibshirani, R.J.: An Introduction to the Bootstrap. CRC Press, London (1994)Google Scholar
  4. Emanuele, V., Chiaramonte, A.: Volatile and tripolar: the new Italian party system. In: De Sio, L., Emanuele, V., Maggini, N., Paparo, A. (eds.) The 2013 Italian General Elections, pp. 95–100. Centro Italiano Studi Elettorali, Florence (2013)Google Scholar
  5. Firebaugh, G.: A rule for inferring individual-level relationships from aggregate data. Am. Sociol. Rev. 43, 557–572 (1978)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Forcina, A., Gnaldi, M., Bracalente, B.: A revised Brown and Payne model of voting behaviour applied to the 2009 elections in Italy. Stat. Methods Appl. 21, 109–119 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gnaldi, M., Tomaselli, V., Forcina, A.: Ecological fallacy and covariates: new insights based on multilevel modelling of individual data. Int. Stat. Rev. 86(1), 119–135 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Goodman, L.A.: Ecological regressions and behavior of individuals. Am. Sociol. Rev. 18, 351–367 (1953)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Goodman, L.A.: Some alternatives to ecological correlation. Am. J. Sociol. 64, 610–625 (1959)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Greiner, J.D., Quinn, K.M.: \({\text{ R }} \times {\text{ C }}\) ecological inference: bounds, correlations, flexibility and transparency of assumptions. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. A 172, 67–81 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Herrmann, M., Pappi, F.U.: Strategic voting in German constituencies. Elect. Stud. 27(2), 228–244 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Johnston, R., Pattie, C.: Putting Voters in Their Place: Geography and Elections in Great Britain. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Klein, S.P., Sacks, J., Freedman, D.A.: Ecological regression versus the secret ballot. Jurimetrics 31, 393–413 (1991)Google Scholar
  14. Liu, B.: EI extended model and the fear of ecological fallacy. Sociol. Methods Res. 20, 1–23 (2007)Google Scholar
  15. Loewen, J.W., Grofman, B.: Recent developments in methods used in vote dilution litigation. Urban Lawyer 21, 589–604 (1989)Google Scholar
  16. Ng, K.W., Tian, G.L., Tang, M.L.: Dirichlet and Related Distributions: Theory, Methods and Applications. Wiley, Chichester (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Plescia, C., De Sio, L.: An evaluation of the performance and suitability of \({\text{ r }} \times {\text{ c }}\) methods for ecological inference with known true values. Qual. Quant. 52(2), 669–683 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Regalia, M.: Electoral reform as an engine of party system change in Italy. S. Eur. Soc. Politics 23(1), 81–96 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Robinson, W.S.: Ecological correlations and the behavior of individuals. Am. Sociol. Rev. 15, 351–357 (1950)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Rosen, O., Jiang, W., King, G., Tanner, M.A.: Bayesian and frequentist inference for ecological inference: the \({\text{ R }} \times {\text{ C }}\) case. Stat. Neerl. 55, 134–156 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Russo, L.: Estimating floating voters: a comparison between the ecological inference and the survey methods. Qual. Quant. 48, 1667–1683 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Russo, L.: The use of aggregate data in the study of voting behavior: ecological inference, ecological fallacy and other applications. In: Fisher, J., Fieldhouse, E., Franklin, M.N., Gibson, R., Cantijoch, M., Wlezien, C. (eds.) The Routledge Handbook of Elections, Voting Behavior and Public Opinion, pp. 484–495. Routledge, London (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Seligson, M.: The renaissance of political culture or the renaissance of the ecological fallacy? Comp. Politics 34, 273–292 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Subramanian, S.V., Jones, K., Kaddour, A., Krieger, N.: Revisiting Robinson: the perils of individualistic and ecologic fallacy. Int. J. Epidemiol. 38, 342–360 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Wakefield, J.: Ecological inference for \(2 \times 2\) tables (with discussion). J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. A 167, 1–42 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Welzel, C., Inglehart, R.: Mass beliefs and democratic institutions. In: Boix, C., Stokes, S.C. (eds.) The Oxford handbook of comparative politics (2007)Google Scholar
  27. Wooldridge, J.M.: Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data. MIT Press, Cambridge (2010)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dipartimento di EconomiaPerugiaItaly
  2. 2.Interuniversity Department of Regional and Urban Studies and Planning (DIST)Università degli Studi di Torino: Politecnico di TorinoTurinItaly

Personalised recommendations