 |
Shaken, Not Stirred: Evidence onBallot Order Effects from the California Alphabet Lottery
| |
| | Unformatted Document Text:
Shaken, Not Stirred: Evidence on Ballot Order Effects
from the California Alphabet Lottery, 1978 – 2002
∗
Daniel E. Ho
†
Department of Government, Harvard University
Yale Law School
Kosuke Imai
‡
Department of Politics, Princeton University
March 3, 2004
Abstract
We analyze a natural experiment to answer the longstanding question of whether the
name order of candidates on ballots affects election outcomes. Since 1975, Californialaw has mandated randomizing the ballot order with a lottery, where alphabet letterswould be “shaken vigorously” and selected from a container. Previous studies, relyingoverwhelmingly on non-randomized data, have yielded conflicting results about whetherballot order effects even exist. Using improved statistical methods, our analysis ofstatewide elections from 1978 to 2002 reveals that ballot order might have changed thewinner in twelve percent of all primary races, including major and minor party races.Effects in general elections remain large for minor party and nonpartisan candidates, butnot major party candidates. We propose that all electoral jurisdictions randomize ballotorder to minimize ballot effects, and we show that randomization may be substantiallymore cost-effective at reducing voting bias than currently proposed voting technologyreforms.
∗
We thank Ian Ayres, Larry Bartels, Marty Gilens, Brian Jacob, Dale Jorgenson, Hanna Lee, John Londregan,
Becky Morton, Kevin Quinn, Donald Rubin, Jas Sekhon, Sarah Sled, Jim Stock, and especially Jim Alt, BarryBurden, Gary King, and Liz Stuart for helpful comments. Joe Falencki and Claudia Ornelas provided excellentresearch assistance. We are also grateful to Janice Atkinson at the Sonoma County Registrar of Voters, Gail Pellerin atthe Santa Cruz County Registrar of Voters, Genevieve Troka at the California State Archives, and Karin MacDonaldof the California Statewide Data Base at the University of California, Berkeley for their kind and resourceful helpin collecting California’s randomized alphabets, election returns, and registration data. Generous research supportwas provided in part by the Committee on Research in the Humanities and Social Sciences at Princeton Universityas well as the Center for Basic Research in the Social Sciences, the Project on Justice, Welfare and Economics, andthe Center for American Political Studies at Harvard University. Finally, we thank seminar participants at HarvardUniversity and Princeton University for stimulating discussions.
†
Ph.D. Candidate, Department of Government, Harvard University; J.D. Candidate, Yale Law School. Phone
617-496-3798, Fax: 617-496-2254, Email: ## email not listed ##, URL: www.people.fas.harvard.edu/˜ deho
‡
Assistant Professor, Department of Politics, Princeton University, Princeton NJ 08544. Phone: 609-258-6610,
Fax: 609-258-1110, Email: ## email not listed ##, URL: www.princeton.edu/˜ kimai
|
| | Authors: Imai, Kosuke. and Ho, Daniel. |
|
| |
|
|
Shaken, Not Stirred: Evidence on Ballot Order Effects
from the California Alphabet Lottery, 1978 – 2002
∗
Daniel E. Ho
†
Department of Government, Harvard University
Yale Law School
Kosuke Imai
‡
Department of Politics, Princeton University
March 3, 2004
Abstract
We analyze a natural experiment to answer the longstanding question of whether the
name order of candidates on ballots affects election outcomes. Since 1975, California
law has mandated randomizing the ballot order with a lottery, where alphabet letters
would be “shaken vigorously” and selected from a container. Previous studies, relying
overwhelmingly on non-randomized data, have yielded conflicting results about whether
ballot order effects even exist. Using improved statistical methods, our analysis of
statewide elections from 1978 to 2002 reveals that ballot order might have changed the
winner in twelve percent of all primary races, including major and minor party races.
Effects in general elections remain large for minor party and nonpartisan candidates, but
not major party candidates. We propose that all electoral jurisdictions randomize ballot
order to minimize ballot effects, and we show that randomization may be substantially
more cost-effective at reducing voting bias than currently proposed voting technology
reforms.
∗
We thank Ian Ayres, Larry Bartels, Marty Gilens, Brian Jacob, Dale Jorgenson, Hanna Lee, John Londregan,
Becky Morton, Kevin Quinn, Donald Rubin, Jas Sekhon, Sarah Sled, Jim Stock, and especially Jim Alt, Barry
Burden, Gary King, and Liz Stuart for helpful comments. Joe Falencki and Claudia Ornelas provided excellent
research assistance. We are also grateful to Janice Atkinson at the Sonoma County Registrar of Voters, Gail Pellerin at
the Santa Cruz County Registrar of Voters, Genevieve Troka at the California State Archives, and Karin MacDonald
of the California Statewide Data Base at the University of California, Berkeley for their kind and resourceful help
in collecting California’s randomized alphabets, election returns, and registration data. Generous research support
was provided in part by the Committee on Research in the Humanities and Social Sciences at Princeton University
as well as the Center for Basic Research in the Social Sciences, the Project on Justice, Welfare and Economics, and
the Center for American Political Studies at Harvard University. Finally, we thank seminar participants at Harvard
University and Princeton University for stimulating discussions.
†
Ph.D. Candidate, Department of Government, Harvard University; J.D. Candidate, Yale Law School. Phone
‡
Assistant Professor, Department of Politics, Princeton University, Princeton NJ 08544. Phone: 609-258-6610,
|
|
 Convention | | All Academic Convention makes running your annual conference simple and cost effective. It is your online solution for abstract management, peer review, and scheduling for your annual meeting or convention. | | Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf. | | Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets! | | Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more! | | Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering. | | Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more! | | Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches! | | Click here for more information. |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Page 1 of 45 
