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.
Ballot position effect Open-list PR Satisficing Bounded rationality Electoral systems
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
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.
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
Geys, B., & Heyndels, B. (2003). Influence of ‘cognitive sophistication’ on ballot layout effects. Acta Politica, 38(4), 295–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gigerenzer, G., & Gaissmaier, W. (2011). Heuristic decision making. Annual Review of Psychology, 62, 451–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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
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
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
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
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
Simon, H. A. (1955). A behavioral model of rational choice. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69(1), 99–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simonson, I., & Tversky, A. (1992). Choice in context: Tradeoff contrast and extremeness aversion. Journal of Marketing Research, 29(3), 281–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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
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
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
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
Villodres, C. O. (2003). Intra-party competition under preferential list systems: The case of Finland. Representation, 40(1), 55–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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