Combining forecasts: An application to elections

• Published in: International journal of forecasting Vol. 30; no. 1; pp. 43 - 54
• Main Authors: Graefe, Andreas, Armstrong, J. Scott, Jones, Randall J., Cuzán, Alfred G.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Amsterdam Elsevier B.V 01.01.2014; Elsevier Sequoia S.A
• Subjects: Combining; Econometric models; Effectiveness; Election Forecasting; Elections; Errors; Expert judgment; Forecasting techniques; Iowa; Markets; Measurement errors; Methodology (Data Analysis); Polls; Prediction markets; Presidential elections; Presidents; Quantitative Methods; Studies; United States > US; Econometric models; Expert judgment; Election forecasting; Combining; Prediction markets; Polls
• ISSN: 0169-2070; 1872-8200
• DOI: 10.1016/j.ijforecast.2013.02.005

We summarize the literature on the effectiveness of combining forecasts by assessing the conditions under which combining is most valuable. Using data on the six US presidential elections from 1992 to 2012, we report the reductions in error obtained by averaging forecasts within and across four election forecasting methods: poll projections, expert judgment, quantitative models, and the Iowa Electronic Markets. Across the six elections, the resulting combined forecasts were more accurate than any individual component method, on average. The gains in accuracy from combining increased with the numbers of forecasts used, especially when these forecasts were based on different methods and different data, and in situations involving high levels of uncertainty. Such combining yielded error reductions of between 16% and 59%, compared to the average errors of the individual forecasts. This improvement is substantially greater than the 12% reduction in error that had been reported previously for combining forecasts.