ABC News Analysis: Clinton's Favorable Placement on Ballots May Account for Part of Poll Mistakes

[sabra]

http://abcnews.go.com/PollingUnit/Decision2008/story?id=4107883&page=1

<snip>

Without a doubt, a big source of the discrepancy between the pre-election surveys and the election outcome in New Hampshire is the order of candidates' names on the ballot and in the surveys.

Our analysis of all recent primaries in New Hampshire showed that there was always a big primacy effect — big-name, big-vote-getting candidates got 3 percent or more votes more when listed first on the ballot than when listed last.

Until this year, New Hampshire rotated candidate name order from precinct to precinct, which allowed us to do that analysis.

This year, the secretary of state changed the procedure so the names were alphabetical starting with a randomly selected letter, in all precincts.

The randomly selected letter this year was Z.

As a result, Joe Biden was first on every ballot, Hillary Clinton was near the top of the list (and the first serious contender listed) and Barack Obama was close to last of the 21 candidates listed.

Thus, I'll bet that Clinton got at least 3 percent more votes than Obama simply because she was listed close to the top.

Most, if not all, of the pre-election telephone polls rotated name order from respondent to respondent, which meant name order did not distort their overall results. Failing to incorporate the name order effect that probably happened in the voting booth is therefore probably partly responsible for the polls' inaccuracy.

More importantly, if New Hampshire had rotated name order in the voting booth as it has always done in the past, the race would probably have been too close to call without a recount and might even have been an Obama victory.

Jon A. Krosnick is the Frederic O. Glover professor in humanities and social sciences at Stanford University. He got his Ph.D. from the University of Michigan.

[Crabby Appleton]

1. Is that how you vote, whoever is close to the top? nt

[SammyWinstonJack]

13. ...

:argh:

[oldtime dfl_er]

2. I remember hearing it was worth 5%

forty years ago when I was working for Gene McCarthy, so this isn't a new theory. I didn't know if it was true then and it seems even more ludicrous now.

[Fresh_Start]

3. So what rate did Biden Accidentally get?

I mean if poll placement is so important, shouldn't he have gotten a huge accidental vote too?
Oh wait, he didn't. Maybe this placement thing isn't a real factor.

[Pab Sungenis]

22. He did.

He got 616 votes, triple what the other drop-out, Dodd, got, and more than Mike Gravel.

[Fresh_Start]

24. So first place for 400 accidental votes

that would suggest that second place got less than 400 accidental votes. Hardly enough to explain any margin of victory.

BTW: Biden got 23 times as many votes as Dodd in Iowa so I wouldn't have expected them to have the same numbers in NH.
So I don't believe that Biden got 3x the votes of Dodd by accident.
His supporters might well have voted for him.

[MNDemNY]

4. Whaaa....

:nopity: :hurts:

[acmavm]

5. Damn, democrats must be fucking idiots. They can't read past

the top of the list.

Sheesh!

[SammyWinstonJack]

14. ...

:spray:

[Bandit]

27. They certainly appear to be so here at DU

Is there any critical thinking still allowed in Amerika?

[mmonk]

6. They should leave it alone and not talk about it.

The more they to explain and account for the difference, the more people become suspicious.

[AndyA]

7. Oh, of course! Why didn't we figure that out before?

You always vote for one of the people closest to the top of the ballot, right?

:eyes:

If people are truly that stupid, one wonders how they're able to breathe, blink, and circulate blood all at the same time. Sheesh.

[artfan]

8. amazing

how stupid people are not only can't they read abc thinks they might buy this shit

she won because in New England people like their conservatives liberal and their liberals conservative

[SIMPLYB1980]

9. Yeah thats what is was.

[Bitwit1234]

10. oH GEE OH WHIZ OH SHIT

Some professor said that and of course doodle boppers jumped on it.

I went back and found the ALPHABETICAL LISTING OF THE NAMES and since the beginning of elections. The person with the higher listing in the alphabet a b c etc has only won no more than five or six times.

Recently Ike, Carter and Bush...so what in the hell difference does the place your name fall in the alphabet garner your vote. Those doodle boppers, have to figure out a way Obama lost other than the fact that more people voted for Hillary, this time. But I bet if Obama wins they will jump higher than he does and say it is because they wanted him. You know like the republicans, they want things both ways. When the explanation fits them it fine and dandy, when the same explanation fits the opponent it is wrong baby......typical bunch of crap those doodle boopers.

[lumberjack_jeff]

15. You didn't read the OP closely enough.

Each state writes up their ballot using their own practices. Until recently NH precincts each did up their own ballots using an alternating placement. This alternating placement allowed statisticians to determine that ballot placement has a statistically significant effect on the result.

Not all ballots list the candidates on alphabetical order, and the ones that do, don't always use "A" as a starting point. Thus, "Bush" wasn't always first on the ballot in 2004, and "Wilson" wasn't always last.

[lumberjack_jeff]

11. Interesting

According to Skinner's thread:

Percentage of men who voted for Clinton: 29%
Percentage of men who voted for Obama: 40%

Percentage of women who voted for Clinton: 46%
Percentage of women who voted for Obama: 34%

I find this intriguing by itself. But when combined with the observation in the OP that ballot placement order accounts for a 3% vote bonus and the anecdotal feedback of the effect of the "they made her cry" perception, it really places into question to what degree policy even matters.

There appear to be a diminishingly small number of voters who vote on the basis of a candidates views.

[Elspeth]

12. The exit polls agreed with the results. There is no voter fraud issue

Pre-election polls are fickle.

[in_cog_ni_to]

16. "UNTIL THIS YEAR, New Hampshire rotated candidate name order from precinct to precinct"

G-d help us all. The shenanigans will never stop.

Why was the old procedure changed THIS YEAR?

[book_worm]

17. This is just the pundits looking for excuses.

[Clinton Crusader]

18. Hang on. Is this stupidity or sheer laziness?

Are Dems that freakin' stupid or that tired or that lazy? Which is it? They can only read a couple of names and doze off? I can understand confusing the crap out of the elderly or maybe most people with the butterfly ballot, but with alphabetical ballots? Or am *I* that tired and I read this wrong?

This whole primary thingamajig is getting kinda comical, really.

:crazy:

[Emit]

19. My first reaction (and I haven't even read the entire piece) -- so MSM is just now concerned

about election polls and such? Something stinks.

[Kip Humphrey]

20. Yup, it always boils down to dumb, illiterate, impatient voters who don't take their vote seriously!

[Earth_First]

21. Would like a recount with that ballot placement as well? n/t

[Hoof Hearted]

23. This is getting HILARIOUS.

I'll bet there was more FLUORIDE in the water in N.H. yesterday and I think I saw some chem-trails, too.

[killbotfactory]

25. The NH Secretary of State is a Clinton fan.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2007-11-03-2937395846_x.htm

[WinkyDink]

26. The actual fact of the matter is: WE DON'T NEED TO EXPLAIN A VOTE.

Maybe I'll vote for the top alphabetical candidate; maybe I'll vote for the left-handed one; maybe I'll vote for the soprano.

These professors are simply gas-bags. Lies, da*n lies, and statistics. Good to remember.