Political Behavior

, Volume 25, Issue 1, pp 1–27 | Cite as

A Low Information Theory of Ballot Position Effect

  • David Brockington
Article

Abstract

This article suggests a theory of ballot position effect based on the amount of information present in the electorate while accounting for several alternative hypotheses. The more information that voters have, all other factors held constant, the less a role ballot position will play. Additionally, the role of electoral institutions in mitigating or magnifying the effect is considered. The theories are tested with precinct-level data from city council elections held in Peoria, Illinois, from 1983 through 1999. Position effect is found to account for a bonus of 0.7% to 5.2% of the precinct-level vote share per position on the ballot. The level of aggregate information and the institutional setting explain a significant share of ballot position effect, even while examined in the presence of alternative explanations such as incumbency, endorsement, campaign expenditure, gender, and race.

ballot position effect low-information voting municipal elections 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. Bain, H. M., and Hecock, D. S. (1957). Ballot Position and Voter's Choice. Detroit: Wayne State University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bakker, Eric, and Lijphart, Arend (1980). A crucial test of alphabetic voting: the elections at the University of Leiden, 1973–1978. British Journal of Political Science 10: 521–525.Google Scholar
  3. Bowler, Shaun, and Donovan, Todd (1998). Demanding Choices: Opinion, Voting, and Direct Democracy Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bowler, Shaun, Donovan, Todd, and Happ, Trudi (1992). Ballot propositions and information costs: direct democracy and the fatigued voter. Western Political Quarterly 45: 559–568.Google Scholar
  5. Bowler, Shaun, Donovan, Todd, and Snipp, J. (1993). Local sources on information and voter choice in state elections. American Politics Quarterly 21: 473–489.Google Scholar
  6. Brischetto, Robert, and Engstrom, Richard (1997). Cumulative voting and Latino representation: exit surveys in fifteen Texas communities. Social Science Quarterly 78: 973–92.Google Scholar
  7. Byrne, Gary C., and Pueschel, J. Kristian (1974). But who should I vote for for county coroner? The Journal of Politics 36: 778–84.Google Scholar
  8. Campbell, A., Converse, P., Miller, W. E., and Stokes, D. (1960). The American Voter. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  9. Cole, Richard, and Taebel, Delbert (1992). Cumulative voting in local elections: lessons from the Alamagordo experience. Social Science Quarterly. 73: 194–201.Google Scholar
  10. Cole, Richard, Taebel, Delbert, and Engstrom, Richard (1990). Cumulative voting in a municipal election: a note on voter reactions and electoral consequences. Western Political Quarterly 43: 191–199.Google Scholar
  11. Conover, Pamela, and Feldman, Stanley (1989). Candidate perception in an ambiguous world: campaigns, cues and inferences processes. American Journal of Political Science 33: 912–939.Google Scholar
  12. Cronbach, Lee J. (1950). Further evidence on response sets and test design. Educational and Psychological Measurement 10: 3–31.Google Scholar
  13. Darcy, Robert (1998). Position effects in multimember districts: the New Hampshire House of Representatives, 1972–1994. Polity 30: 691–703.Google Scholar
  14. Darcy, Robert, and McAllister, Ian (1990). Ballot position effects. Electoral Studies 9: 5–17.Google Scholar
  15. Downs, Anthony (1957). An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper.Google Scholar
  16. Fiorina, Morris (1981). Retrospective Voting in American National Elections. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Guinier, Lani (1994). The Tyranny of the Majority. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  18. Illinois State Board of Elections (2002a). Illinois Campaign Disclosure Act (available on-line at http://www.elections.state.il.us/CDS/pages/DiscAct.htm).Google Scholar
  19. Illinois State Board of Elections (2002b). Illinois State Board of Elections Homepage(http://www.elections.state.il.us).Google Scholar
  20. Kelley, Jonathan, and McAllister, Ian (1984). Ballot paper cues and the vote in Australia and Britain: alphabetic voting, sex, and title. Public Opinion Quarterly 48: 452– 466.Google Scholar
  21. Key, V. O. (1949). Southern Politics in State and Nation. New York, A. A. Knopf.Google Scholar
  22. Key, V. O. with Cummings, Milton C. (1966). The Responsible Electorate: Rationality in Presidential Voting 1936–1960. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Koriat, A., Lichtenstein, S., and Fischhoff, B. (1980). Reasons for confidence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory 6: 107–118.Google Scholar
  24. Krosnick, Jon (1991). Response strategies for coping with the cognitive demands of attitude measures in surveys. Applied Cognitive Psychology 5: 213–236.Google Scholar
  25. Lijphart, Arend, and Pintor, Rafael Lopez (1988). Alphabetic bias in partisan elections: patterns of voting for the Spanish senate, 1982 and 1986. Electoral Studies 7: 225–231.Google Scholar
  26. Lupia, Arthur (1994). Shortcuts versus encyclopedias: information and voting behavior in California insurance reform elections. American Political Science Review 88: 63–76.Google Scholar
  27. Lupia, Arthur, and McCubbins, Mathew D. (1998). The Democratic Dilemma: Can Citizens Learn What They Really Need to Know? New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  28. McDermott, Monika L. (1997). Voting cues in low-information elections: candidate gender as a social information variable in contemporary United States elections. American Journal of Political Science 41: 270–283.Google Scholar
  29. McDermott, Monika L. (1998). Race and gender cues in low information elections. Political Research Quarterly 51: 895–918.Google Scholar
  30. McDermott, Monika L. (1999). Shortcut voting: candidate characteristics and voter inference. Ph.D. dissertation. University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
  31. Miller, Joanne M., and Krosnick, Jon A. (1998). The impact of candidate name order on election outcomes. Public Opinion Quarterly 62: 291–330.Google Scholar
  32. Mueller, John (1969). Voting on the propositions: ballot patterns and historical trends in California. American Political Science Review 63: 1197–1212.Google Scholar
  33. Mueller, John (1970). Choosing among 133 candidates. Public Opinion Quarterly 34: 395–402.Google Scholar
  34. Nichols, Stephen M. (1997). Ballot position revisited: a multivariate assessment of ballot position and candidate success in low-salience elections. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Western Political Science Association, Tucson, Arizona.Google Scholar
  35. Nichols, Stephen, and Strizek, Gregory (1995). Electronic voting machines and ballot roll-off. American Politics Quarterly 23: 300–318.Google Scholar
  36. Page, Benjamin I., and Shapiro, Robert Y. (1992). The Rational Public: Fifty Years of Trends in Americans' Policy Preferences. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  37. Popkin, Samuel L. (1991). The Reasoning Voter: Communication and Persuasion in Presidential Campaigns. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  38. Robson, C., and Walsh, B. (1974). The importance of positional voting bias in the Irish general election of 1973. Political Studies 22: 191–203Google Scholar
  39. Simon, Herbert A. (1957). Models of Man. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  40. Simon, Herbert A. (1996). The Sciences of the Artificial. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  41. Sniderman, Paul M., Brody, Richard A., and Tetlock, Philip E. (1991). Reasoning and Choice: Explorations in Political Psychology New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Still, Edward (1984). Alternatives to single-member districts. In C. Davidson (ed.), Minority Vote Dilution, pp. 249–267. Washington, DC: Howard University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Taebel, Delbert A. (1975). The effects of ballot position on electoral success. American Journal of Political Science 19: 519–26.Google Scholar
  44. Thomas, Norman (1968). Voting machines and voter participation in four Michigan constitutional revision referenda. Western Political Quarterly21: 409–419.Google Scholar
  45. Upton, G. J. G., and Brook, D. (1974). The importance of positional voting bias in British elections. Political Studies 22: 178–190.Google Scholar
  46. Verba, Sidney, and Nie, Norman H. (1972). Participation in America. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
  47. Walker, J. (1966). Ballot forms and voter fatigue: an analysis of the office block and party column ballots. Midwest Journal of Political Science 10: 448–63.Google Scholar
  48. Wolfinger, Raymond E., and Rosenstone, Steven J. (1980). Who Votes? New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • David Brockington
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceUniversity of TwenteEnschedeThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations