The first one wins: Distilling the primacy effect

Abstract

Research has shown that in proportional, flexible list systems, ballot list position influences electoral success. In this paper we investigate to what extent this is due to the primacy effect, a psychological bias towards the first option in a list. We also examine alternative explanations such as the electoral beneficial traits these candidates share and extra media coverage they receive. Using data from the 2014 Belgian elections, we find that candidates with higher ballot list positions indeed score better because they have more political experience and receive more media attention. We also find strong evidence for the primacy effect which is caused by a confirmation bias as well as ballot list position being the easiest heuristic for voters.

Sharing is caring: the role of voter-candidate similarities in intra-party electoral competition

“…In order to take into account the supply side, I control for several variables that the literature has identified as important explanations for a political candidate’s success; ballot list position (van Erkel and Thijssen, 2016), political experience (Put and Maddens, 2015), gender, age (McElroy and Marsh, 2010), and media coverage (Maddens et al , 2006). In addition, dummies for the first and last candidates on the lists are added, as research points out that these candidates receive an additional bonus above the normal ballot list position effect (van Erkel and Thijssen, 2016). Finally, I expect that once more candidates from a municipality are on the same ballot list, voters may vote for only one of these candidates.…”

Cue-Taking, Satisficing, or Both? Quasi-experimental Evidence for Ballot Position Effects

“…Different mechanisms may underlie such effects. First, particularly in an institutional setting with ranked candidate lists, voters may turn to (list) position as a signal of candidate quality (Katz and Bardi 1980;Lutz 2010;Marcinkiewicz 2014;van Erkel and Thijssen 2016;Blom-Hansen et al 2016)even in the extreme case of not knowing anything about the candidates. A position near the top of the ballot constitutes a form of endorsement by the party, which voters may use as orientation in their choice, even if these candidates are actually not more appealing.…”

“…In addition to observational work (e.g. Villodres 2003;Marcinkiewicz 2014;Lutz 2010;van Erkel and Thijssen 2016), two studies draw on quasi-random variation created by multi-column ballot designs (Geys and Heyndels 2003;Blom-Hansen et al 2016). However, this approach does not allow for inferences about position effects at the top of the list, which are theoretically and substantively the most interesting ones.…”

“…Put differently, our theoretical framework provides a theoretical rationale for the log-transformation, which is often motivated from a data perspective (Blom-Hansen et al 2016;van Erkel and Thijssen 2016;Marcinkiewicz 2014).…”

Ineffective and Counterproductive? The Impact of Gender Quotas in Open-List Proportional Representation Systems

“…That is, candidates at top ballot positions are much more likely to receive preferential votes than candidates at lower ballot positions simply because of their position on the ballot paper (e.g., Marcinkiewicz 2014). Several factors explain this finding: top-placed candidates are more prominent, have more political experience, and receive more media attention (Van Erkel and Thijssen 2016). Moreover, Blom-Hansen et al (2016) demonstrate that there is a causal effect simply because of the high attention voters pay to candidates at the top ballot positions.…”