The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
How (Not) to Predict Elections
Open accessAbstract
Using social media for political discourse is increasingly becoming common practice, especially around election time. Arguably, one of the most interesting aspects of this trend is the possibility of ''pulsing'' the public's opinion in near real-time and, thus, it has attracted the interest of many researchers as well as news organizations. Recently, it has been reported that predicting electoral outcomes from social media data is feasible, in fact it is quite simple to compute. Positive results have been reported in a few occasions, but without an analysis on what principle enables them. This, however, should be surprising given the significant differences in the demographics between likely voters and users of online social networks. This work aims to test the predictive power of social media metrics against several Senate races of the two recent US Congressional elections. We review the findings of other researchers and we try to duplicate their findings both in terms of data volume and sentiment analysis. Our research aim is to shed light on why predictions of electoral (or other social events) using social media might or might not be feasible. In this paper, we offer two conclusions and a proposal: First, we find that electoral predictions using the published research methods on Twitter data are not better than chance. Second, we reveal some major challenges that limit the predictability of election results through data from social media. We propose a set of standards that any theory aiming to predict elections (or other social events) using social media should follow.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Twitter mood predicts the stock market
Bollen, J., Mao, H., & Zeng, X. (2011) · Journal of Computational Science · doi:10.1016/j.jocs.2010.12.007 · Cited by 5,206
Predicting the future with social media
Asur, S., & Huberman, B. A. (2010) · 2010 IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conference on Web Intelligence and Intelligent Agent Technology · doi:10.1109/wi-iat.2010.63 · Cited by 2,081
Cited by
The Parable of Google Flu: Traps in Big Data Analysis
Lazer, D., Kennedy, R., King, G., & Vespignani, A. (2014) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1248506 · Cited by 2,523
Birds of the Same Feather Tweet Together. Bayesian Ideal Point Estimation Using Twitter Data
Barbera, P. (2012) · doi:10.2139/ssrn.2108098 · Cited by 983
Birds of the Same Feather Tweet Together: Bayesian Ideal Point Estimation Using Twitter Data
Barberá, P. (2015) · Political Analysis · doi:10.1093/pan/mpu011 · Cited by 982
Bots, #Strongerin, and #Brexit: Computational Propaganda During the UK-EU Referendum
Howard, P. N., & Kollanyi, B. (2016) · doi:10.2139/ssrn.2798311 · Cited by 392
Social Media, Echo Chambers, and Political Polarization
Barberá, P. (2020) · Social Media and Democracy · doi:10.1017/9781108890960.004 · Cited by 373
Metadata
- Authors
- Metaxas, P. T., Mustafaraj, E., & Gayo-Avello, D.
- Venue
- 2011 IEEE Third Int'l Conference on Privacy, Security, Risk and Trust and 2011 IEEE Third Int'l Conference on Social Computing
- Publisher
- IEEE
- Published
- 2011-10
- Pages
- 165-171
- OpenAlex
- W2540795244
- Cited by
- 282
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 54.75
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: How (Not) to Predict Elections. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1109/passat/socialcom.2011.98
- The paper
- Metaxas, P. T., Mustafaraj, E., & Gayo-Avello, D. (2011). How (Not) to Predict Elections. 2011 IEEE Third Int'l Conference on Privacy, Security, Risk and Trust and 2011 IEEE Third Int'l Conference on Social Computing. https://doi.org/10.1109/passat/socialcom.2011.98
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.