Advertisement

Cue-Taking, Satisficing, or Both? Quasi-experimental Evidence for Ballot Position Effects

  • Thomas Däubler
  • Lukas Rudolph
Original Paper

Abstract

Ballot position effects have been documented across a variety of political and electoral systems. In general, knowledge of the underlying mechanisms is limited. There is also little research on such effects in preferential-list PR systems, in which parties typically present ranked lists and thus signaling is important. This study addresses both gaps. Theoretically, we formalize four models of voter decision-making: pure appeal-based utility maximization, implying no position effects; rank-taking, where voters take cues from ballot position per se; satisficing, where choice is a function of appeal, but voters consider the options in the order of their appearance; and a hybrid “satisficing-with-rank-taking” variant. From these, we derive differential observable implications. Empirically, we exploit a quasi-experiment, created by the mixed-member electoral system that is used in the state of Bavaria, Germany. Particular electoral rules induce variation in both the observed rank and the set of competitors, and allow for estimating effects at all ranks. We find clear evidence for substantial position effects, which are strongest near the top, but discernible even for the 15th list position. In addition, a candidate’s vote increases when the average appeal of higher-placed (but not that of lower-placed) competitors is lower. Overall, the evidence is most compatible with the hybrid satisficing-with-rank-taking model. Ballot position thus affects both judgment and choice of candidates.

Keywords

Ballot position effect Open-list PR Satisficing Bounded rationality Electoral systems 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Shaun Bowler, Alejandro Ecker, Anthony McGann, André Klima, Jon Krosnick, Moritz Marbach, Oliver Pamp and conference participants at EPSA and APSA 2017 for helpful comments. We are also grateful to Harald Schoen for valuable suggestions, to Harald Schoen and Thorsten Faas for sharing data, and to Ertan Bat for research assistance. Thomas Däubler acknowledges funding from the German Research Foundation, grant DA 1692/1-1. Lukas Rudolph acknowledges funding from the German Academic Scholarship Foundation. Replication materials are provided on  https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/SWORPS.

Supplementary material

11109_2018_9513_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (1.9 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (pdf 1974 KB)

References

  1. Adams, J. (1999). Policy divergence in multicandidate probabilistic spatial voting. Public Choice, 100(1–2), 103–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. André, A., Depauw, S., Shugart, M. S., & Chytilek, R. (2015). Party nomination strategies in flexible-list systems: Do preference votes matter? Party Politics.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1354068815610974.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Angrist, J. D., & Pischke, J. S. (2008). Mostly harmless econometrics: An empiricist’s companion. Princeton University Press.  https://doi.org/10.1057/be.2009.37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ariely, D., Loewenstein, G., & Prelec, D. (2003). “Coherent arbitrariness”: Stable demand curves without stable preferences. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118(1), 73–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blom-Hansen, J., Elklit, J., Serritzlew, S., & Riis Villadsen, L. (2016). Ballot position and election results: Evidence from a natural experiment. Electoral Studies, 44, 172–183.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2016.06.019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blumenau, J., Eggers, A. C., Hangartner, D., & Hix, S. (2017). Open/closed list and party choice: Experimental evidence from the UK. British Journal of Political Science, 47(4), 809–827.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123415000629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brockington, D. (2003). A low information theory of ballot position effect. Political Behavior, 25(1), 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brüderl, J., & Ludwig, V. (2015). Fixed-effects panel regression. In H. Best, & C. Wolf (Eds.) Regression analysis and causal inference, pp. 327–357.Google Scholar
  9. Cameron, A. C., & Miller, D. L. (2015). A practitioner’s guide to cluster-robust inference. Journal of Human Resources, 50(2), 317–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Caplin, A., Dean, M., & Martin, D. (2011). Search and satisficing. The American Economic Review, 101(7), 2899–2922.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chen, E., Simonovits, G., Krosnick, J. A., & Pasek, J. (2014). The impact of candidate name order on election outcomes in North Dakota. Electoral Studies, 35, 115–122.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2014.04.018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Crisp, B. F., Olivella, S., Malecki, M., & Sher, M. (2013). Vote-earning strategies in flexible list systems: Seats at the price of unity. Electoral Studies.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2013.02.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dahlgaard, J. O. (2016). You just made it: Individual incumbency advantage under proportional representation. Electoral Studies, 44, 319–328.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2016.09.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Däubler, T., & Hix, S. (2018). Ballot structure, list flexibility and policy representation. Journal of European Public Policy, 25(12), 1798–1816.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2017.1361465 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Einhorn, H. J., & Hogarth, R. M. (1981). Behavioral decision theory: Processes of judgement and choice. Annual Review of Psychology, 32(1), 53–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Faas, T., & Schoen, H. (2006). The importance of being first: Effects of candidates’ list positions in the 2003 Bavarian state election. Electoral Studies, 25(1), 91–102.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2005.04.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Folke, O., Persson, T., & Rickne, J. (2015). The primary effect: Preference votes and political promotions. American Political Science Review, 110(3), 559–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Geys, B., & Heyndels, B. (2003). Influence of ‘cognitive sophistication’ on ballot layout effects. Acta Politica, 38(4), 295–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gigerenzer, G., & Gaissmaier, W. (2011). Heuristic decision making. Annual Review of Psychology, 62, 451–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Górecki, M. A., & Kukołowicz, P. (2014). Gender quotas, candidate background and the election of women: A paradox of gender quotas in open-list proportional representation systems. Electoral Studies, 36, 65–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Górecki, M. A., & Marsh, M. (2012). Not just ‘friends and neighbours’: Canvassing, geographic proximity and voter choice. European Journal of Political Research, 51(5), 563–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hernán, M. A., & VanderWeele, T. J. (2011). Compound treatments and transportability of causal inference. Epidemiology, 22(3), 368–77.  https://doi.org/10.1097/EDE.0b013e3182109296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ho, D. E., & Imai, K. (2008). Estimating causal effects of ballot order from a randomized natural experiment: The California alphabet lottery, 1978–2002. Public Opinion Quarterly, 72(2), 216–240.  https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfn018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jankowski, M. (2016). Voting for locals: Voters’ information processing strategies in open-list PR systems. Electoral Studies, 43, 72–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Katz, R. S., & Bardi, L. (1980). Preference voting and turnover in Italian parliamentary elections. American Journal of Political Science, 24(1), 97–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kauder, B., & Potrafke, N. (2015). Just hire your spouse! Evidence from a political scandal in Bavaria. European Journal of Political Economy, 38, 42–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kim, N., Krosnick, J., & Casasanto, D. (2015). Moderators of candidate name-order effects in elections: An experiment. Political Psychology, 36(5), 525–542.  https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Krosnick, J. A., & Alwin, D. F. (1987). An evaluation of a cognitive theory of response-order effects in survey measurement. Public Opinion Quarterly, 51(2), 201–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lutz, G. (2010). First come, first served: The effect of ballot position on electoral success in open ballot PR elections. Representation, 46(2), 167–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Marcinkiewicz, K. (2014). Electoral contexts that assist voter coordination: Ballot position effects in Poland. Electoral Studies, 33, 322–334.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2013.07.018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Marcinkiewicz, K., & Stegmaier, M. (2015). Ballot position effects under compulsory and optional preferential-list PR electoral systems. Political Behavior, 37(2), 465–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Marsh, M. (1985). The voters decide? Preferential voting in european list systems. European Journal of Political Research, 13(4), 365–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Massicotte, L. (2011). Mixed systems. In J. M. Colomer (Ed.), Personal representation. The neglected dimension of electoral systems (pp. 97–115). Colchester: ECPR Press.Google Scholar
  34. Meier, B. P., & Robinson, M. D. (2004). Why the sunny side is up. Associations between affect and vertical position. Psychological Science, 15(4), 243–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Meredith, M., & Salant, Y. (2013). On the causes and consequences of ballot order effects. Political Behavior, 35(1), 175–197.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-011-9189-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Miller, J. M., & Krosnick, J. (1998). The impact of name order on election outcomes. Public Opinion Quarterly, 62(3), 291–330.  https://doi.org/10.1086/297848.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Pasek, J., Schneider, D., Krosnick, J. A., Tahk, A., Ophir, E., & Milligan, C. (2014). Prevalence and moderators of the candidate name-order effect evidence from statewide general elections in California. Public Opinion Quarterly, 78(2), 416–439.  https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfu013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Pilet, J.B., Renwick, A., Núñez, L., Reimink, E., & Simón, P. (2016). Database of electoral systems. 2016. http://www.electoralsystemchanges.eu.
  39. Redlawsk, D. P. (2004). What voters do: Information search during election campaigns. Political Psychology, 25(4), 595–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Renwick, A., & Pilet, J. B. (2016). Faces on the ballot. The personalization of electoral systems in Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Rubinstein, A., & Salant, Y. (2006). A model of choice from lists. Theoretical Economics, 1(1), 3–17.Google Scholar
  42. Rudolph, L., & Däubler, T. (2016). Holding individual representatives accountable: The role of electoral systems. Journal of Politics, 78(3), 746–762.  https://doi.org/10.1086/685378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Shugart, M. S. (2005). Comparative electoral systems research: The maturation of a field and new challenges ahead. In M. Gallagher & P. Mitchell (Eds.), The politics of electoral systems (pp. 25–56). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Shugart, M. S., Valdini, M. E., & Suominen, K. (2005). Looking for locals: Voter information demands and personal vote-earning attributes of legislators under proportional representation. American Journal of Political Science, 49(2), 437–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Simon, H. A. (1955). A behavioral model of rational choice. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69(1), 99–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Simonson, I., & Tversky, A. (1992). Choice in context: Tradeoff contrast and extremeness aversion. Journal of Marketing Research, 29(3), 281–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Sniderman, P. M. (2000). Taking sides: A fixed choice theory of political reasoning. In A. Lupia, M. D. McCubbins, & S. L. Popkin (Eds.), Elements of reason: Cognition, choice, and the bounds of rationality (pp. 67–84). Cambrdige: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Stegmaier, M., Tosun, J., & Vlachová, K. (2014). Women’s parliamentary representation in the Czech Republic: Does preference voting matter? East European Politics & Societies, 28, 187–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Tavits, M. (2010). Effect of local ties on electoral success and parliamentary behaviour. The case of Estonia. Party Politics, 16(2), 215–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Thurner, P. W. (1998). Wählen als rationale Entscheidung. München: Oldenbourg.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Tourangeau, R., Couper, M. P., & Conrad, F. G. (2013). “Up means good”. The effect of screen position on evaluative ratings in web surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly, 77(S1), 69–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. van Erkel, P. F., & Thijssen, P. (2016). The first one wins: Distilling the primacy effect. Electoral Studies, 44, 245–254.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2016.09.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Villodres, C. O. (2003). Intra-party competition under preferential list systems: The case of Finland. Representation, 40(1), 55–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Wauters, B., Weekers, K., & Maddens, B. (2010). Explaining the number of preferential votes for women in an open-list PR system: An investigation of the 2003 federal elections in Flanders (Belgium). Acta Politica, 45(4), 468–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Zittlau, S., Gschwend, T., Blais, A., & Stephenson, L. (2017). Making Electoral Democracy Work (MEDW) 2013-2014 Bavaria Panel Study.  https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/YAHN5S.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of MannheimMannheimGermany
  2. 2.ETH ZurichZurichSwitzerland
  3. 3.LMU MunichMunichGermany

Personalised recommendations