Cultural advice

The Australian National University acknowledges, celebrates and pays our respects to the Ngunnawal and Ngambri people of the Canberra region and to all First Nations Australians on whose traditional lands we meet and work, and whose cultures are among the oldest continuing cultures in human history.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are advised that ANU Library collections may include images, names, voices, and other representations of deceased persons.

Material in the collection may contain terms, language or views that reflect the period in which the item was created and may be considered inappropriate today.

Are Ballot Order Effects Heterogeneous?

dc.contributor.authorKing, Amy
dc.contributor.authorLeigh, Andrew
dc.date.accessioned2015-12-07T22:54:17Z
dc.date.issued2009
dc.date.updated2016-02-24T12:13:01Z
dc.description.abstractObjective. Past research on ballot order effects has typically focused on the average benefit a candidate receives if placed at the top of the ballot. This study addresses a gap in the literature by examining the possibility that a simple average may mask systematic differences in how the ballot order effect varies across candidates and voters. Methods. Using data from all Australian federal elections between 1984 and 2004, a sample that covers 1,187 separate electoral contests and 7,113 candidate × election observations, this study estimates the effect of ballot order on a candidate's share of the primary vote. To determine whether ballot order effects differ across voters as well as candidates, the study also makes use of electorate-level demographic data from the 1996 and 2001 Australian censuses. Results. The results of these estimations indicate that being placed first on the ballot increases a candidate's vote share by about 1 percentage point. As a proportion of their total vote, this effect is much larger for independents and minor parties than for major parties. The ballot order effect appears to be similar for male and female candidates, and does not show strong trends upward or downward over the 20-year period covered by our study. Across electorates, the ballot order effect is higher in places where voters are younger and fluency in English is lower. Conclusions. A statistically significant ballot order effect was a consistent feature of Australian federal elections between 1984 and 2004. Moreover, this study challenges the assumption that ballot order effects are homogenous, and finds that the effect of being placed atop the ballot varies across both candidates and voters.en_AU
dc.identifier.issn0038-4941
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1885/28115en_AU
dc.publisherUniversity of Texas Press
dc.sourceSocial Science Quarterly
dc.subjectKeywords: Australia; Candidates; Decision Making; Elections; Sex Differences; Voting Behavior; Australia; Ballots; Candidates; Decision Making; Elections; Voting Behavior
dc.titleAre Ballot Order Effects Heterogeneous?
dc.typeJournal article
local.bibliographicCitation.issue1
local.bibliographicCitation.lastpage87
local.bibliographicCitation.startpage71
local.contributor.affiliationKing, Amy, Centre for Policy Development
local.contributor.affiliationLeigh, Andrew, College of Business and Economics, ANU
local.contributor.authoruidLeigh, Andrew, u4170357
local.description.embargo2037-12-31
local.description.notesImported from ARIES
local.identifier.absfor140299 - Applied Economics not elsewhere classified
local.identifier.ariespublicationu9807482xPUB55
local.identifier.citationvolume90
local.identifier.doi10.1111/j.1540-6237.2009.00603.x
local.identifier.scopusID2-s2.0-58449110240
local.type.statusPublished Version

Downloads

Original bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
01_King_Are_Ballot_Order_Effects_2009.pdf
Size:
120.18 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format