Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Twitter Buzz As an Election Predictor

Posted by Unknown on from the popularity-contest dept.

Capt.Albatross writes "A study presented at the American Sociological Association's annual meeting suggests that simply comparing the frequency with which the candidates' names are mentioned in tweets can predict the result of elections almost as well as conventional polls, even without considering the sentiment (for or against the named candidate) of the messages. Furthermore, the correlation seems strongest in close elections. Additional commentary can be found at the Wall Street Journal and from Indiana University."

10 of 55 comments (clear)

  1. Most of those are bots. by stewsters · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Google "buy twitter followers" and you will see a lot of companies dealing with this. Most of the time when you get random followers who just tweet the same format of things, its because they are bots.

    Whichever candidate can afford hire the most companies to have bots repost what they are tweeting have the highest chance of winning. It all comes down to who has the most money for advertising, same as always.

    1. Re:Most of those are bots. by umghhh · · Score: 2

      now replace the other side i.e. politicians with bots and the whole system may even start working efficiently.

    2. Re:Most of those are bots. by girlintraining · · Score: 2

      Speaking of bots... I'd like to propose a new flying hunter-killer robot that tracks down people who submit election-related news when there is no election happening in the next month . By all means, go bat-shit crazy about the election when it's actually timely... but right now, nobody gives a fuck. No really: The number of fucks given counter hit zero almost a year ago. The care-o-meter in Carealot is pointing straight down. Tenderheart is cutting his own wrists right now and sobbing. Grumpybear finally feels validated. Can I be any more clear on this lack of fucks given?

      The media wants us to care about an election that's three years from now. This is like trying to start the Christmas season in July. Mind you, the Christmas season currently expanding like an unemployed American living in a McDonald's... but even rabid christians and retailers hoping for some dollars for jesus hasn't been able to fatten it up to the point where it's eaten adjacent seasons.

      Now, let's talk about those hunter-killer robots. That is relevant to nerds. Especially snarky and annoyed ones.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
  2. Limitations by kubajz · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Yes, perhaps a good predictor now, but only up to the moment when results of these polls are widely publicized... and some company offers to manipulate the trending words for a price?

  3. Isn't it kind of Dada? by smittyoneeach · · Score: 2

    That is only useful as long as no one bothered to notice this point consciously?

    --
    Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
  4. Because Spam = Reality ??? by Salgak1 · · Score: 2

    Mind you, this is cheap way of astro-turfing. But beyond the most superficial analysis, astro-turfing fails quickly. especially where reputation is considered. Create a couple of thousand of twitter bots ? Easy. Getting real people to follow them ? Hard. . .

  5. Really? by mmcxii · · Score: 2

    How's that Twitter thing working out for Anthony Weiner?

  6. Maybe if things were transparent.. by brxndxn · · Score: 2

    In the 2008 election, there was an enormous interest in Ron Paul. His google searches were higher than any other Republican nominee for most of 2007 and 2008. His Twitter interest was huge.. http://www.nethosting.com/buzz/blog/ron-paul-wins-gop-nomination-if-twitter-votes-counted/

    But, things are not transparent like that in the US. The mainstream media controlled the 'buzz' around Ron Paul and continued to act like he had little chance. The google trends and Twitter followers were ignored. The Internet buzz was discounted.

    Maybe this article will be accurate in the future as the Internet takes over (and more so the Internet Generation takes over).. But if you tried to predict the last election based on Twitter, you would either be thinking there was massive fraud or there somehow was a huge amount of the US population that never heard of the Internet.

    --
    --- We need more Ron Paul!
  7. Re:New election strategy by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

    Correlation does not imply causation.

    But in this case, correlation can lead to causation.

    1. Send lots of tweets to simulate popularity.
    2. Get publicity for being "in the lead".
    3. Get more attention from journalists, debate organizers, and potential voters.
    4. Get donations from special interests that want to back a "winner".
    5. Profit!

  8. Re:New election strategy by cellocgw · · Score: 2

    Correlation does not imply causation.

    Obligatory http://xkcd.com/552/

    --
    https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw