Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

International Symposium on Quantum Interaction

QI 2013: Quantum Interaction pp 286–295Cite as

On Quantum Models for Opinion and Voting Intention Polls

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:

  • 855 Accesses

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNTCS,volume 8369))

Abstract

In this contribution, we construct a connection between two quantum voting models presented previously. We propose to try to determine the result of a vote from associated given opinion polls. We introduce a density operator relative to the family of all candidates to a particular election. From an hypothesis of proportionality between a family of coefficients which characterize the density matrix and the probabilities of vote for all the candidates, we propose a numerical method for the entire determination of the density operator. This approach is a direct consequence of the Perron-Frobenius theorem for irreductible positive matrices. We apply our algorithm to synthetic data and to operational results issued from the French presidential election of April 2012.

AMS classification: 65F15 \(\cdot \) 81Q99 \(\cdot \) 91C99.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Abramowitz, A.: An improved model for predicting the outcomes of presidential elections. PS: Pol. Sci. Pol. 21, 843–847 (1988)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Arrow, K.J.: Social Choice and Individual Values. Wiley, New York (1951)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  3. Balinski, M., Laraki, R.: A theory of measuring, electing and ranking. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U S A 104(21), 8720–8725 (2007). doi:10.1073/pnas.0702634104

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  4. Balinski, M., Laraki, R.: Le Jugement Majoritaire: l’Expérience d’Orsay. Commentaire 30(118), 413–420 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Bitbol, M. (ed.): Théorie Quantique et Sciences Humaines. CNRS Editions, Paris (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  6. de Borda, J.C.: Mémoire sur les élections au scrutin. Histoire de l’Académie Royale des Sciences, Paris (1781)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Busemeyer, J.R., Trueblood, J.: Comparison of quantum and Bayesian inference models. In: Bruza, P., Sofge, D., Lawless, W., van Rijsbergen, K., Klusch, M. (eds.) QI 2009. LNCS, vol. 5494, pp. 29–43. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Cohen-Tannoudji, C., Diu, B., Laloë, F.: Mécanique Quantique. Hermann, Paris (1977)

    Google Scholar 

  9. de Condorcet, N.: Essai sur l’application de l’analyse à la probabilité des décisions rendues à la pluralié des voix. Imprimerie Royale, Paris (1785)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Campbell, J.E.: Forecasting the presidential vote in the states. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 36, 386–407 (1992)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Dubois, F.: On the measure process between different scales. In: Res-Systemica, 7th European Congress of System Science, Lisboa, vol. 7, December 2008

    Google Scholar 

  12. Dubois, F.: On voting process and quantum mechanics. In: Bruza, P., Sofge, D., Lawless, W., van Rijsbergen, K., Klusch, M. (eds.) QI 2009. LNCS, vol. 5494, pp. 200–210. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Dubois, F.: A quantum approach for determining a state of the opinion. Workshop on Quantum Decision Theory. Symposium on Foundations and Applications of Utility, Risk and Decision Theory, Atlanta, Georgia, USA, 30 June–03 July 2012, unpublished

    Google Scholar 

  14. Gallup, G.H.: Guide to Public Opinion Polls. Princeton University Press, Princeton (1944)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Grangier, P.: Contextual objectivity: a realistic interpretation of quantum mechanics. Eur. J. Phys. 23, 331–337 (2002). doi:10.1088/0143-0807/23/3/312

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Haven, E., Khrennikov, A.: Quantum Social Science. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2013)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  17. Khrennikov, A.Y., Haven, E.: The importance of probability interference in social science: rationale and experiment. arXiv:0709.2802, September 2007

    Google Scholar 

  18. IPSOS: Le baromètre de l’action politique, for Le Point, 09 April 2012

    Google Scholar 

  19. IPSOS-Logica: Baromètres d’intentions de vote pour l’élection présidentielle, vague 16, 10 April 2012

    Google Scholar 

  20. Lafay, J.D.: L’analyse économique de la politique: raisons d’être, vrais problèmes et fausses critiques. Rev. Fran. Sociol. 38, 229–244 (1997)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. La Mura, P., Swiatczak, L.: Markovian Entanglement Networks. Leizig Graduate School of Management, Leipzig (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Lewis-Beck, M.S.: French national elections: political economic forecasts. Eur. J. Polit. Econ. 7, 487–496 (1991)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Meyer, C.: Matrix Analysis and Applied Linear Algebra. SIAM, Philadelphia (2000). ISBN 0-89871-454-0

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  24. Smith, W.D.: Range Voting, December 2000

    Google Scholar 

  25. Rivest, R.L., Smith, W.D.: Three voting protocols: Threeballot, VAV, and Twin. In: Proceedings of the Electronic Voting Technology’07, Boston, MA, 6 August 2007

    Google Scholar 

  26. Serre, D.: Matrices: Theory and Applications. Springer, New York (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  27. Wang, Z., Busemeyer, J.R., Atmanspacher, H., Pothos, E.M.: The potential to use quantum theory to build models of cognition. Top. Cogn. Sci. 5(4), 672–688 (2013). doi:10.1111/tops.12043

    Google Scholar 

  28. Zorn, C., Smith, C.E.: Pseudo-classical nonseparability and mass politics in two-party systems. In: Song, D., Melucci, M., Frommholz, I., Zhang, P., Wang, L., Arafat, S. (eds.) QI 2011. LNCS, vol. 7052, pp. 83–94. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The author thanks the referees for helpful comments on the first edition (April 2013) of this contribution. Some of them have been incorporated into the present edition of the article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Conservatoire National des Arts et Métiers, Paris, France

    François Dubois

  2. Association Française de Science des Systèmes, Paris, France

    François Dubois

Authors
  1. François Dubois
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to François Dubois .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland

    Harald Atmanspacher

  2. School of Management, University of Leicester, Leicester, United Kingdom

    Emmanuel Haven

  3. Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia

    Kirsty Kitto

  4. Department of Physics and Astronomy Centre for Interdisciplinary Science, University of Leicester, Leicester, United Kingdom

    Derek Raine

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Dubois, F. (2014). On Quantum Models for Opinion and Voting Intention Polls. In: Atmanspacher, H., Haven, E., Kitto, K., Raine, D. (eds) Quantum Interaction. QI 2013. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 8369. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-54943-4_26

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-54943-4_26

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-54942-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-54943-4

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation