大數(shù)據(jù)能否左右選舉結(jié)果?
????薩沙?伊森伯格的新書《選戰(zhàn)勝利之?dāng)?shù)據(jù)分析》(The Victory Lab)中有一章節(jié),講述了政治競選專家亞歷山大?蓋奇會議他在2000年米特?羅姆尼州長競選中,如何使用全新的數(shù)據(jù)目標(biāo)定位系統(tǒng)的故事。 ????蓋奇通過將選民的消費記錄和其政治投票史相結(jié)合,確定出在共和黨非傳統(tǒng)票倉區(qū)中,哪些選民是可爭取的。蓋奇認為自己的工作是革命性的,這不僅開創(chuàng)了政治競選中使用數(shù)據(jù)分析之先河,也可以說是所有領(lǐng)域中的頭一遭。但是當(dāng)他做完這番陳述后,羅姆尼競選副經(jīng)理亞歷克斯?鄧恩面無表情地問道:“你的意思是,之前的競選中都沒人這樣做過?” ????在2001年,鄧恩的驚訝情有可原。盡管自從那時起,一切都發(fā)生了很大的變化,但是政治競選說到底還是一門模擬和分析的藝術(shù)?!哆x戰(zhàn)勝利之?dāng)?shù)據(jù)分析》一書就講述了政治數(shù)據(jù)挖掘分析技術(shù)是如何來確定可爭取的選民,進而左右競選結(jié)果的。 ????政治家們將伊森伯格的新書稱為“政治領(lǐng)域的《點球成金》(Moneyball)”。像蓋奇這樣的政治競選專家和《點球成金》影片中的主角、奧克蘭競技者隊總經(jīng)理比利?比恩是一樣的,他們都是開創(chuàng)性地運用數(shù)據(jù)挖掘和分析技術(shù),幫助各自的組織在競爭中脫穎而出。 ????盡管在球隊做了14年的總經(jīng)理,但比利?比恩卻從未能將隊伍帶進世界職業(yè)棒球大賽。相反,蓋奇和其他競選專家卻將數(shù)據(jù)分析這個技術(shù)優(yōu)勢轉(zhuǎn)化為看得見的選舉勝利。雖然過去兩次總統(tǒng)大選的勝利并不完全都是這些競選專家的功勞,但運用最先進數(shù)據(jù)分析技術(shù)的陣營連贏了兩次卻是不爭的事實。 ????2004年,小布什競選團隊運用先進的數(shù)據(jù)挖掘分析手段助他贏得了總統(tǒng)大選。四年后,巴拉克?奧巴馬在大選中完勝約翰?麥凱恩,部分原因也在于奧巴馬團隊在數(shù)據(jù)分析方面要勝過麥凱恩團隊一籌。 ????伊森伯格似乎采訪了競選數(shù)據(jù)分析領(lǐng)域的所有人,但是這個話題本身就注定了這本書不會那么通俗易懂。用數(shù)據(jù)事實說話不假,但是過于紛繁的數(shù)據(jù)反而會令人感到困惑和無所適從。讀完此書,除了寥寥的幾個實驗結(jié)果,或許讀者很難再記起其他內(nèi)容。建議在閱讀時準(zhǔn)備一支筆,這樣就可以隨時記下一些關(guān)鍵的數(shù)據(jù)。 ????但伊森伯格在書中給出的材料如此之豐富和詳實,讀者一定會手不釋卷地一讀到底。就算是對某些隨機實驗結(jié)果的解讀分析讀起來也是饒有趣味。比如,在談到“微目標(biāo)定位”技術(shù)時,他給出了2010年參議員改選時,科羅拉多州參議員邁克爾?班尼特是如何借此技術(shù)多獲得25,000張選票的故事。這個數(shù)字乍看起來或許并不起眼,除非你知道,在這場競選中,只要獲得15,000張選票就可穩(wěn)操勝券。 ????伊森伯格不愿意對政治競選數(shù)據(jù)挖掘技術(shù)做出過于言之鑿鑿的預(yù)測??紤]到不少政客開始把它定義為“左右競選勝利的關(guān)鍵因素”,這不失為明智之舉。說白了,選舉就是選民在投票日當(dāng)天,站在投票箱前投票那一瞬間的好惡判斷。但是《選戰(zhàn)勝利之?dāng)?shù)據(jù)分析》一書提醒我們,每個選民的投票選擇實際上是許多因素共同作用的結(jié)果,而其中又有許多因素是這些競選專家們可以操縱和控制的。 ????譯者:唐昕昕 |
????There's a powerful vignette in Sasha Issenberg's The Victory Lab in which political consultant Alexander Gage presents his new data targeting system to Mitt Romney's 2002 gubernatorial campaign. ????Gage has combined consumer records with political voting history to identify potential Romney supporters among nontraditional Republican voting blocks. Gage sees his work as revolutionary -- a first in politics, and potentially a first anywhere. Yet just as he completes his presentation, Romney's deputy campaign manager Alex Dunn raises his hand and deadpans, "You mean you don't do this in politics." ????Dunn's surprise was not out of place in 2001. And while much has changed since then, politics remains an analog art in many ways. The Victory Lab charts the recent history of political data mining designed to identify persuadable voters and swing elections. ????Politico has called Issenberg's book "Moneyball for politics." There are obvious parallels between political operatives like Gage and the protagonist of Moneyball, Oakland Athletics general manager Billy Beane. Both pioneered data-centric techniques that gave their respective organizations a leg up over the competition. ????Yet in his 14 years as GM, Billy Beane has yet to make it to the World Series. By contrast, the work of Gage and other data-mining political consultants has translated directly into electoral success. These operatives may not have singlehandedly won the past two presidential elections, but the side that had the most advanced data-driven mobilization efforts went a perfect 2-0. ????The George W. Bush campaign's sophisticated data mining helped the president win reelection in 2004. Four years later, Barack Obama defeated John McCain in part because the Obama campaign outclassed McCain's operatives on the data front. ????Issenberg seems to have interviewed everyone who's anyone in the field of political statistics, but his subject matter doesn't necessarily lend itself to prose. Numbers have power, but too many of them can addle rather than inform. After reading the book, you'll probably remember the outcome of a few experiments, but be stuck scouring your brain for the results of the rest. Readers are advised to keep a pen and pencil handy when reading The Victory Lab, so they can jot down key stats. ????Yet Issenberg's material is sufficiently gripping that you'll want to keep turning the pages, even if it means deciphering the results of yet another randomized trial. For example, micro-targeting efforts on behalf of Senator Michael Bennett (D-Colo.)'s 2010 Senate reelection campaign likely spurred 25,000 additional Bennett votes. That might not seem like a big number, until you consider that the race was decided by 15,000 votes. ????Issenberg avoids sweeping predictions about the future of political data mining. That's probably wise, given that political professionals tend to define the future as Election Day. Campaigns at their simplest are a one-day snapshot of personal preference. The Victory Lab reminds us, however, that every individual choice is the result of a thousand factors, many of them subject to manipulation by political operatives. |
最新文章