Tweets and Votes: A Study of the 2011 Singapore General Election

This study focuses on the uses of Twitter during the elections, examining whether the messages posted online are reflective of the climate of public opinion. Using Twitter data obtained during the official campaign period of the 2011 Singapore General Election, we test the predictive power of tweets in forecasting the election results. In line with some previous studies, we find that during the elections the Twitter sphere represents a rich source of data for gauging public opinion and that the frequency of tweets mentioning names of political parties, political candidates and contested constituencies could be used to make predictions about the share of votes at the national level, although the accuracy of the predictions was significantly lower that in the studies done in Germany and the UK. At the level of constituency the predictive power of tweets was much weaker, although still better than chance. The findings suggest that the context in which the elections take place also matters, and that issues like media freedoms, competitiveness of the elections and specifics of the electoral system may lead to certain over- and under-estimations of voting sentiment. The implications for future research are discussed.

[1]  Timothy W. Finin,et al.  Why we twitter: understanding microblogging usage and communities , 2007, WebKDD/SNA-KDD '07.

[2]  Panagiotis Takis Metaxas,et al.  Limits of Electoral Predictions Using Twitter , 2011, ICWSM.

[3]  Susan C. Herring,et al.  Beyond Microblogging: Conversation and Collaboration via Twitter , 2009, 2009 42nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

[4]  Johan Bollen,et al.  Modeling Public Mood and Emotion: Twitter Sentiment and Socio-Economic Phenomena , 2009, ICWSM.

[5]  Hosung Park,et al.  What is Twitter, a social network or a news media? , 2010, WWW '10.

[6]  B. Latané,et al.  From private attitude to public opinion: A dynamic theory of social impact. , 1990 .

[7]  Bernard J. Jansen,et al.  Twitter power: Tweets as electronic word of mouth , 2009, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[8]  Brian F. Schaffner,et al.  Re-Examining the Validity of Different Survey Modes for Measuring Public Opinion in the U.S.: Findings From a 2010 Multi-Mode Comparison , 2011 .

[9]  Hongfei Yan,et al.  Comparing Twitter and Traditional Media Using Topic Models , 2011, ECIR.

[10]  Isabell M. Welpe,et al.  Where There is a Sea There are Pirates: Response to Jungherr, Jürgens, and Schoen , 2012 .

[11]  Isabell M. Welpe,et al.  Predicting Elections with Twitter: What 140 Characters Reveal about Political Sentiment , 2010, ICWSM.

[12]  JungherrAndreas,et al.  Why the Pirate Party Won the German Election of 2009 or The Trouble With Predictions , 2012 .

[13]  Lada A. Adamic,et al.  The Party Is Over Here: Structure and Content in the 2010 Election , 2011, ICWSM.

[14]  Bernardo A. Huberman,et al.  Predicting the Future with Social Media , 2010, 2010 IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conference on Web Intelligence and Intelligent Agent Technology.

[15]  Danah Boyd,et al.  Tweet, Tweet, Retweet: Conversational Aspects of Retweeting on Twitter , 2010, 2010 43rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

[16]  Kuan-Ju Chen,et al.  Congressional Candidates’ Use of Twitter During the 2010 Midterm Elections: A Wasted Opportunity? , 2011 .

[17]  Itai Himelboim,et al.  Birds of a Feather Tweet Together: Integrating Network and Content Analyses to Examine Cross-Ideology Exposure on Twitter , 2013, J. Comput. Mediat. Commun..

[18]  Jon Kleinberg,et al.  Differences in the mechanics of information diffusion across topics: idioms, political hashtags, and complex contagion on twitter , 2011, WWW.