Position Effects With Party Column Ballots

Abstract

PART of the folklore of politics is that being first on a ballot is worth at least some votes in the general election. A number of states, out of a sense of fairness, as a result of political compromise, or as a consequence of court orders, have attempted to nullify supposed ballot position effect by rotating ballot positions in general elections. This has been done in several ways. Alaska completely shuffles ballots before distributing them to voters. In this way the candidate on the top for one voter will be on the bottom for the very next voter at that voting station. Ohio, Idaho, and several counties in Colorado rotate by precincts. California rotates by state assembly districts; Kansas and Illinois rotate by counties; Kentucky rotates by congressional districts. New Mexico conducts a lottery each year to determine state-wide ballot position. In this way, either in each election or across several elections, each party or each candidate is in the first position roughly an equal number of times. To assess the consequences of ballot rotation, interviews by phone and in person were conducted with election officials in thirteen states and with certain local election officials where rotation is practiced: Franklin County, Ohio; Chicago; and Denver County, Colorado. In addition, interviews were conducted with senior officers of two major companies providing election equipment and ballots to a number of states. These interviews were structured and averaged over one hour each. Published testimony by other election officials in various federal court cases was also reviewed.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 51 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.