Citation
Publication Date:
Format:
Bibliography:
How does partisan regulation of political markets affect elections? We investigate how the partisan control of ballot format, which is expressly regulated - often to the apparent advantage of incumbents and major parties - in all U.S. states, affects voting. Through the analysis of a unique natural experiment, we focus specifically on 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. Previous studies, relying overwhelmingly on observational data, have yielded largely conflicting results. 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. We propose that all electoral jurisdictions should randomize ballot order to minimize ballot effects, and show that randomization may be substantially more cost-effective at reducing voting bias than currently proposed voting technology reforms.
Other publications by this author
- Reconciling Punitive Damages Evidence
- Measuring Agency Preferences: Experts, Voting, and the Power of Chairs
- Did Liberal Justices Invent the Standing Doctrine? An Empirical Study of the Evolution of Standing, 1921-2006
- Did a Switch in Time Save Nine?
- How Not to Lie with Judicial Votes: Misconceptions, Measurement, and Models
- The Role of Theory and Evidence in Media Regulation and Law: A Response to Baker and a Defense of Empirical Legal
- Viewpoint Diversity and Media Consolidation: An Empirical Study
- Evaluating Course Evaluations: An Empirical Analysis of a Quasi-Experiment at the Stanford Law School, 2000-2007
- Measuring Explicit Political Positions of Media
- Improving the Presentation and Interpretation of Online Ratings Data with Model-based Figures
Author
- Daniel E. Ho
- Stanford Law School
- dho@law.stanford.edu
- 650 723.9560