Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-gtxcr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T07:52:57.468Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Popularity and Vote: Forecasting the 2007 French Presidential Election

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 March 2010

Antoine Auberger*
Affiliation:
University of Paris
*
Antoine Auberger, University of Paris 2 and CES-LAEP, University of Paris 1, Maison des Sciences Economiques 106-112, bd de l'Hôpital, 75647 Paris cedex 13, France. auberger@univ-paris1.fr.

Abstract

Abstract. The purpose of this article is to build a model that explains and forecasts the outcome of the second-round vote in the French presidential elections (with the hypothesis of a classic duel between left and right) in each department and at the national level. This model highlights the influence of the popularity of the Socialist party and a partisan variable in the explanation of the second-round vote for the candidate of the left in the French presidential elections. Its forecasts for the elections of the past (1981–1995 and 1981–2007, excluding 2002) are satisfactory and we make ex ante forecasts for the 2007 French presidential election.

Résumé. L'objet de cet article est de construire un modèle qui explique et prévoit le résultat du second tour de scrutin aux élections présidentielles françaises (en supposant le duel classique entre la gauche et la droite) dans chaque département et au niveau national. Ce modèle met en lumière l'influence de la popularité du Parti socialiste et d'une variable partisane dans l'explication du vote au second tour pour le candidat de la gauche aux élections présidentielles. Les prévisions ex post pour les élections passées (de 1981 à 1995 et de 1981 à 2007, en excluant 2002) sont satisfaisantes et on établit des prévisions ex ante pour l'élection présidentielle française de 2007.

Type
Symposium: Electoral Forecasting and the 2007 French Presidential Elections
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Political Science Association 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abramowitz, Alan I. 2000. “Bill and Al's Excellent Adventure: Forecasting the 1996 Presidential Election.” In Before the Vote: Forecasting American National Elections, ed. Campbell, James E. and Garand, James C.. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Abramowitz, Alan I. 2004. “When Good Forecasts Go Bad: The Time-for-Change Model and the 2004 Presidential Election.” PS: Political Science and Politics 37: 745–46.Google Scholar
Auberger, Antoine. 2004. “Les fonctions de vote: un survol de la littérature.” l'Actualité Économique – Revue d'Analyse Économique 80: 95107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Auberger, Antoine. 2005. “Forecasts of the 2004 French European Election.” Swiss Political Science Review 11: 6178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Auberger, Antoine and Dubois, Eric. 2003. “Situation politico-économique et résultats des élections législatives françaises.” Revue Économique 54: 551–60.Google Scholar
Auberger, Antoine and Dubois, Eric. 2005. “The Influence of Local and National Economic Conditions on French Legislative Elections.” Public Choice 125: 363–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beck, Nathaniel and Katz, Jonathan N.. 1995. “What to Do (and not to do) with Time-Series Cross-Section Data.” American Political Science Review 89: 634–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beck, Nathaniel, Katz, Jonathan N., Alvarez, R. Michael, Garrett, Geoffrey and Lange, Peter. 1993. “Government Partisanship, Labor Organization, and Macroeconomic Performance: A Corrigendum.” American Political Science Review 87: 943–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bhargava, Alok., Franzini, Luisa and Narendranathan, Wiji. 1982. “Serial Correlation and Fixed Effects Model.” Review of Economic Studies 49: 533–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Courbis, Raymond. 1995. “La conjoncture économique, la popularité politique et les perspectives électorales dans la France d'aujourd'hui.” Journal de la société de statistique de Paris 136: 4770.Google Scholar
Cuzan, Alfred G. and Bundrick, Charles M.. 2005. “Deconstructing the 2004 Presidential Election Forecasts: The Fiscal Model and the Campbell Collection Compared.” PS: Political Science and Politics 38: 255–62.Google Scholar
Dubois, Eric. 2002. “Un modèle de prévision par département pour les élections présidentielles françaises.” Working Paper LAEP. Université de Paris 1.Google Scholar
Erikson, Robert S. and Wlezien, Christopher. 2000. “Temporal Horizons and Presidential Election Forecasts.” In Before the Vote: Forecasting American National Elections, ed. Campbell, James E. and Garand, James C.. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Fair, Ray C. 1996. “Econometrics and Presidential Elections.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 10: 89102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fidrmuc, Jan. 2000. “Economics of voting in post-communist countries.” Electoral Studies 19: 199217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hibbs, Douglas A. Jr. 2000. “Bread and Peace Voting in US Presidential Elections.” Public Choice 104: 149–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holbrook, Thomas M. and De Sart, Jay A.. 1999. “Using state polls to forecast presidential election outcomes in the American states.” International Journal of Forecasting 15: 137–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hsiao, Cheng. 2003. Analysis of Panel Data. 2nd edition. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jérôme, Bruno and Jérôme-Speziari, Véronique. 2004. “Forecasting the 2002 Presidential Elections: Lessons from a Political Economy Model.” In The French Voter: Before and After the 2002 Elections, ed. Lewis-Beck, Michael S.. Basingstoke UK: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Jérôme, Bruno, Jérôme-Speziari, Véronique and Lewis-Beck, Michael S.. 2003. “Reordering the French Election Calendar: Forecasting the Consequences for 2002.” European Journal of Political Research 42: 425–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koenker, Roger. 1981. “A Note on Studentizing a Test of Heteroscedasticity.” Journal of Econometrics 17: 107–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lafay, Jean-Dominique, Facchini, François and Auberger, Antoine. 2007. “Modèles politico-économétriques et prévisions électorales pour mai 2007.” Revue française d'économie 21: 145–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis-Beck, Michael S. 1995. “Les déterminants économiques de la popularité politique et la prévision électorale: un bilan général des résultats économétriques.” Journal de la Société de Statistique de Paris 136: 2945.Google Scholar
Lewis-Beck, Michael S. 1997. “Who's the Chef? Economic Voting under a Dual Executive.” European Journal of Political Research 31: 315–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis-Beck, Michael S. and Tien, Charles. 2000. “The Future in Forecasting: Prospective Presidential Models.” In Before the Vote: Forecasting American National Elections, ed. Campbell, James E. and Garand, James C.. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Lewis-Beck, Michael S. and Tien, Charles. 2004. “Jobs and the Job of President: A Forecast for 2004.” PS: Political Science and Politics 37: 753–58.Google Scholar
Newey, Whitney K. and West, Kenneth D.. 1987. “A Simple, Positive Semi-definite, Heteroskedasticity and Autocorrelation Consistent Covariance Matrix.” Econometrica 55: 703–08.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soumbatiants, Souren, Chappell, Henry W. Jr., and Johnson, Eric. 2006. “Using state polls to forecast US Presidential election outcomes.” Public Choice 127: 207–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tucker, Joshua A. 2002. “The first Decade of Post-Communist Elections and Voting: What Have We Studied, and How Have We Studied It?Annual Review of Political Science 5: 271304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tucker, Joshua A. 2006. Regional Economic Voting: Russia, Poland, Hungary, Slovakia and the Czech Republic, 1990–1999. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, Halbert L. Jr. 1980. “A heteroskedasticity-consistent covariance estimator and a direct test for heteroskedasticity.” Econometrica 48: 817–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wlezien, Christopher and Erikson, Robert S. 2004. “The Fundamentals, the Polls, and the Presidential Vote.” PS: Political Science and Politics 37: 747–51.Google Scholar