NYT: In the Voting Booth, Bias Starts at the Top

[lady lib]

November 4, 2006
Op-Ed Contributor
In the Voting Booth, Bias Starts at the Top
By JON A. KROSNICK
Stanford, Calif.

PEOPLE who are first in line at a movie know they have the best chance of getting the seats they want. When students answer multiple-choice questions incorrectly, they usually choose one of the first options offered. When people taste-test four brands of beer, they tend to prefer the one they try first.

And so it is with voting. Candidates listed first on the ballot get about two percentage points more votes on average than they would have if they had been listed later (flipping a 49 to 51 defeat into a 51 to 49 victory). In fact, in about half the races I have studied, the advantage of first place is even bigger — certainly big enough to win some elections these days.

When do voters gravitate to the first name they see? Based on the more than 100 elections in Ohio that a colleague and I studied, it’s when voters know little or nothing about the candidates, or when the candidates’ party affiliations are not listed on the ballot, or when the incumbent (whom voters typically know at least somewhat) is not running for re-election. Thus, some voters apparently feel an obligation or desire to vote even when they have no basis for choosing a candidate and are drawn to the first name they read.

But even in well-publicized major national races, being listed first can help. Some people walk into the voting booth feeling ambivalent, and in the end just grab the name on top so they can get out of the booth.
snip

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/04/opinion/04krosnick.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print

I love this line that's further into the piece, "Ohio uses a system that is the model of fairness and accountability." But then it goes on to say that thanks to Blackwell, "many Ohio counties ignored the rotation law and listed John Kerry last twice as often as the law allowed." (My emphasis) /Grrr