Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2407.19339

Using Total Margin of Error to Account for Non-Sampling Error in Election Polls: The Case of Nonresponse

Jeff Dominitz·Charles F. Manski
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The potential impact of non-sampling errors on election polls is well known, but measurement has focused on the margin of sampling error. Survey statisticians have long recommended measurement of total survey error by mean square error (MSE), which jointly measures sampling and non-sampling errors. We think it reasonable to use the square root of maximum MSE to measure the total margin of error (TME). Measurement of TME should encompass both sampling error and all forms of non-sampling error. We suggest that measurement of TME should be a standard feature in the reporting of polls. To provide a clear illustration, and because we believe the exceedingly low response rates commonly obtained by election polls to be a particularly worrisome source of potential error, we demonstrate how to measure the potential impact of nonresponse using the concept of TME. We first show how to measure TME when a pollster lacks any knowledge of the candidate preferences of nonrespondents. We then extend the analysis to settings where the pollster has partial knowledge that bounds the preferences of non-respondents. In each setting, we derive a simple poll estimate that approximately minimizes TME, a midpoint estimate, and compare it to a conventional poll estimate.

Explore related subjects

econ.EM

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Jeff Dominitz, Charles F. Manski. 2024-10-31. Using Total Margin of Error to Account for Non-Sampling Error in Election Polls: The Case of Nonresponse. https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.19339

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Difference-in-Differences with Unpoolable Data

Difference-in-differences (DID) is commonly used to estimate treatment effects but is infeasible in settings where data are unpoolable due to privacy concerns or legal restrictions on data sharing, particularly across jurisdictions. In this study, we identify and relax the assumption of data poolability in DID estimation. We propose an innovative approach to estimate DID with unpoolable data (UN-DID) which can accommodate covariates, multiple groups, and staggered adoption. Through analytical proofs and Monte Carlo simulations, we show that UN-DID and conventional DID estimates of the average treatment effect and standard errors are equal and unbiased in settings without covariates. With covariates, both methods produce estimates that are unbiased, equivalent, and converge to the true value. The estimates differ slightly but the statistical inference and substantive conclusions remain the same. Two empirical examples with real-world data further underscore UN-DID's utility. The UN-DID method allows the estimation of cross-jurisdictional treatment effects with unpoolable data, enabling better counterfactuals to be used and new research questions to be answered.

econ.EM↗
arXiv2026

The Promise of Time-Series Foundation Models for Agricultural Forecasting: Evidence from Commodity Prices

Forecasting agricultural markets remains challenging due to nonlinear dynamics, structural breaks, and sparse data. A long-standing belief holds that simple time-series methods outperform more advanced alternatives. This paper provides the first systematic evidence that this belief no longer holds with modern time-series foundation models (TSFMs). Using USDA ERS monthly commodity price data from 1997-2025, we evaluate 17 forecasting approaches across four model classes, including traditional time-series, machine learning, deep learning, and five state-of-the-art TSFMs (Chronos, Chronos-2, TimesFM 2.5, Time-MoE, Moirai-2), and construct annual marketing year price predictions to compare with USDA's futures-based season-average price (SAP) forecasts. We show that zero-shot foundation models consistently outperform traditional time-series methods, machine learning, and deep learning architectures trained from scratch in both monthly and annual forecasting. Furthermore, foundation models remarkably outperform USDA's futures-based forecasts on three of four major commodities despite USDA's information advantage from forward-looking futures markets. Time-MoE delivers the largest accuracy gains, achieving 54.9% improvement on wheat and 18.5% improvement on corn relative to USDA ERS benchmarks on recent data (2017-2024 excluding COVID). These results point to a paradigm shift in agricultural forecasting.

econ.EM↗
arXiv2026

Testing for Monotone Equilibrium Strategies in Games of Incomplete Information

This paper develops a unified framework for testing monotonicity of Bayesian Nash equilibrium strategies in unobserved types in games of incomplete information. We show that, under symmetric independent private types, monotonicity of differentiable equilibrium strategies is equivalent to monotonicity of a quasi-inverse strategy identified from observed actions. This allows the problem to be reformulated as testing a countable set of moment inequalities involving unconditional expectations. We propose a Cramer-von Mises-type statistic with bootstrap critical values. The method accommodates covariates and game heterogeneity. Monte Carlo simulations demonstrate finite-sample performance, and an application to procurement auctions illustrates cartel detection.

econ.EM↗