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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Brown, P.J., Payne, C.D.: Aggregate data, ecological regression, and voting transitions. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 81, 452–460 (1986)
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)
Efron, B., Tibshirani, R.J.: An Introduction to the Bootstrap. CRC Press, London (1994)
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)
Firebaugh, G.: A rule for inferring individual-level relationships from aggregate data. Am. Sociol. Rev. 43, 557–572 (1978)
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)
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)
Goodman, L.A.: Ecological regressions and behavior of individuals. Am. Sociol. Rev. 18, 351–367 (1953)
Goodman, L.A.: Some alternatives to ecological correlation. Am. J. Sociol. 64, 610–625 (1959)
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)
Herrmann, M., Pappi, F.U.: Strategic voting in German constituencies. Elect. Stud. 27(2), 228–244 (2008)
Johnston, R., Pattie, C.: Putting Voters in Their Place: Geography and Elections in Great Britain. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2006)
Klein, S.P., Sacks, J., Freedman, D.A.: Ecological regression versus the secret ballot. Jurimetrics 31, 393–413 (1991)
Liu, B.: EI extended model and the fear of ecological fallacy. Sociol. Methods Res. 20, 1–23 (2007)
Loewen, J.W., Grofman, B.: Recent developments in methods used in vote dilution litigation. Urban Lawyer 21, 589–604 (1989)
Ng, K.W., Tian, G.L., Tang, M.L.: Dirichlet and Related Distributions: Theory, Methods and Applications. Wiley, Chichester (2011)
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)
Regalia, M.: Electoral reform as an engine of party system change in Italy. S. Eur. Soc. Politics 23(1), 81–96 (2018)
Robinson, W.S.: Ecological correlations and the behavior of individuals. Am. Sociol. Rev. 15, 351–357 (1950)
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)
Russo, L.: Estimating floating voters: a comparison between the ecological inference and the survey methods. Qual. Quant. 48, 1667–1683 (2014)
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)
Seligson, M.: The renaissance of political culture or the renaissance of the ecological fallacy? Comp. Politics 34, 273–292 (2002)
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)
Wakefield, J.: Ecological inference for \(2 \times 2\) tables (with discussion). J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. A 167, 1–42 (2004)
Welzel, C., Inglehart, R.: Mass beliefs and democratic institutions. In: Boix, C., Stokes, S.C. (eds.) The Oxford handbook of comparative politics (2007)
Wooldridge, J.M.: Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data. MIT Press, Cambridge (2010)
Acknowledgement
We would like to thank Paolo Natale, Luana Russo and Lorenzo De Sio for comments and suggestions.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Forcina, A., Pellegrino, D. Estimation of voter transitions and the ecological fallacy. Qual Quant 53, 1859–1874 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-019-00845-1
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-019-00845-1