Will Trump win again in the 2020 election? An answer from a sociophysics model
Section snippets
Foreword
Applying the Galam model of opinion dynamics to predict the outcome of the November 3, 2020 US presidential election, I concluded on Trump victory. While the paper was logically submitted prior to the election, it happened that the report by the referees came once the outcome of the election has been known: my prediction had failed. On this basis, I could have been tempted to withdraw the paper, no researcher being eager to have in print a wrong prediction.
Nevertheless, as clearly stated in the
Words of caution
It is of importance to emphasize that I am not dealing with a choice being wrong or right. I am not advocating for one candidate or the other. Within the field of sociophysics, I am focusing on identifying the hidden mechanisms, which drive the dynamics of opinion between two competing choices, in particular to anticipate the one, which will eventually ends up above 50% in case of a vote.
It is worth to remind that sociophysics is the use of concepts and techniques from Statistical Physics to
The Galam model of opinion dynamics
Two choices A and B are competing among agents like for a Presidential race (Clinton and Trump in 2016, Trump and Biden in 2020). I consider heterogeneous agents with three psychological traits, floaters, inflexibles and contrarians.
- •
Floaters are agents having an opinion and advocating for it but they are susceptible to shift opinion if given convincing arguments
- •
Inflexibles are agents (stubborn, committed) who never shift its opinion.
- •
Contrarian are agents taking a contrary choice to the (local
The 2016 prediction
With respect to 2016 my claim is that Trump victory was neither an accident nor the result of some manipulations. It was the outcome of a non-linear dynamics, which obeys quantitative laws. And indeed, I could predict Trump victory using the Galam model of opinion dynamics [6], which could answer the following questions:
- (i)
How comes Trump won while making repeated shocking statements, which infuriated millions of people?
- (ii)
How comes Trump campaign, which went against all making sense
The 2020 prediction: setting
After four years with Trump president, people got used to his repeated shocking statements, which stopped generating indignation, turning the frozen prejudice effect obsolete for the 2020 campaign. Does that means Trump will be losing the election? The answer is no.
With no unfreezing mechanism, the naturally activated prejudices will determine the tie breaking. However, this time, the activated prejudices are activated at the benefit of both candidates. Main ones are fear of the other candidate
The 2020 prediction: winning strategies
What to conclude from above results, which allow envisioning novel disturbing strategies to win a major political vote, including the 2020, November 3, American presidential election? Contrary to what could be a priori expected, to win a voting majority is not to convince a maximum of floaters.
For each candidate, main instrumental keys appear to be twofold, focusing on both increasing the share of the naturally activated prejudices which are in tune with the candidate and producing the maximum
The 2020 prediction: the November winner
From above results the winner in the 2020 November election will be the candidate who will succeed in getting more and in a series of swing states to reach the majority of Electors. However, in each state the various proportions of respective inflexibles (stubborn pro-Biden, stubborn pro-Trump), and leading prejudices (fear of Trump or Biden, reckless or cautious), are unknown. On this basis, I can only make rough estimates to determine winning or losing trends.
From my perception and
Conclusion
Using the Galam model of opinion dynamics, I was able to predict successfully the 2016 Trump victory, who had found a winning martingale, which could not be applied by Clinton. However, for the coming 2020 election, according to the same model, the instrumental winning quantities and to ensure the victory, are this time available to both candidate. Biden and Trump can increase the stubbornness of their supporters and build up fear for the other candidate as well as promoting either being
Note added in revision
My prediction failed and as anticipated in the conclusion, it deserves an analysis to single out what went wrong in the making of the prediction. Two possibilities exist about a failure, either it is a significant failure with a massive blue wave as predicted by many polls or a light failure with Biden winning at the edge. The first case would require revisiting the basic elements of the model with some relevant ingredient being missed. On the contrary, the second case would be coherent with
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank late Dietrich Stauffer for our numerous lively and exciting discussions during several decades. He has been an outstanding physicist and a friend who has been always available to respond to my many comments with sound arguments and an amazing sense of humor. I am convinced he would have loved a paper with the author arguing that its wrong prediction was “almost right”. I miss him.
References (39)
- et al.
The role of inflexible minorities in the breaking of democratic opinion dynamics
Physica A
(2007) Collective beliefs versus individual inflexibility: The unavoidable biases of a public debate
Physica A
(2011)- et al.
Phase transitions in social impact models of opinion formation
Phys. A
(2000) - et al.
Majority-vote model with limited visibility: an investigation into filter bubbles
Physica A
(2021) - et al.
Opinion dynamics with emergent collective memory: A society shaped by its own past
Physica A
(2020) The physics of public opinion
Phys. World
(2020)Recent advances in opinion propagation dynamics: A 2020 Survey
Eur. Phys. J. Plus
(2020)Sociophysics
Phys. Today
(2018)Sociophysics: A Physicist’s Modeling of Psycho-Political Phenomena
(2012)- et al.
Statistical physics of social dynamics
Rev. Modern Phys.
(2009)
The Trump phenomenon, an explanation from sociophysics, arxiv:1609.03933 (2016)
Internat. J. Modern Phys. B
Critical mass effect in evolutionary games triggered by zealots
Phys. Rev. Res.
Hipsters on networks: How a minority group of Individuals can lead to an anti-establishment majority
Phys. Rev. E
Analysis of the high dimensional naming game with committed minorities
Phys. Rev. E
Competing opinions and stubbornness: connecting models to data
Phys. Rev. E
Inflexibility and independence: Phase transitions in the majority-rule model
Phys. Rev. E
Nonlinear q-voter model with inflexible zealots
Phys. Rev. E
Cited by (11)
Symmetric Nash equilibrium of political polarization in a two-party system
2022, Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its ApplicationsCitation Excerpt :Collective decision-making is an example of such emergent phenomena arising from individual-level interactions [1–4]. Broadly speaking, the group of activities associated with collective decision-making in society can be referred to as politics, and it is why statistical physicists have viewed the interplay between individual choices and political changes within the framework of complex systems [5–8]. One of widely accepted political values is democracy, according to which the people have the right to rule.
After 2018 Bolsonaro victory, is a 2022 remake feasible?
2022, Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its ApplicationsCitation Excerpt :A great deal of works have been published along this approach [8,9]. Several studies related to politics and elections were published in the last years [10–13]. They use discrete variables or continuous ones.
Deviations from the majority: A local flip model
2022, Chaos, Solitons and FractalsCitation Excerpt :Versions of this model have been used to predict surprising election results, such as the French rejection of the European constitution in 2005 [30], the Brexit vote [20], and Trump's election for president in 2016 [19]. However, the prediction of a second Trump victory in 2020 failed by a short margin [21]. From a mathematical point of view, these scenarios can be modelled by the repeated application of an update equation that takes as input the current distribution of opinions, given by the proportion of individuals with opinion A, and outputs the new proportion of individuals with opinion A. Thus, this is a dynamic model where, for any initial distribution of opinions, we have a trajectory of distributions over time.