Unpacking Ballot Order Effects: Exploring the Role of Implied Endorsement in Voter Behavior

One of the more intriguing phenomena in electoral politics is the ballot order effect, wherein the first-listed candidate on a ballot often receives a disproportionate share of votes compared to their competitors. This primacy effect has been widely documented in political science literature, yet the underlying causal mechanisms remain a matter of scholarly debate. Is it a cognitive shortcut, satisficing by voters, accidental selection, or an implicit endorsement of the first candidate?

The primacy effect is often explained through theories of cognitive effort. Voters, particularly those with low information or low motivation, may choose the first-listed candidate as a heuristic to minimize cognitive load. Alternatively, some voters may mistakenly select the wrong candidate due to ballot design issues, such as confusing layouts or insufficient attention. However, a third potential mechanism—implied endorsement—suggests that voters may unconsciously perceive the first candidate as being subtly endorsed or favored by the electoral system.

To isolate and measure the implied endorsement effect, a controlled experiment could provide valuable insights. The experimental design would feature two conditions. In the control condition, candidates would be listed in random order, and researchers would track the share of votes awarded to the first-listed candidate. Consistent with prior findings, it is expected that the first-listed candidate would receive a vote share exceeding the expected 1/n proportion, where nnn is the total number of candidates.

In the treatment condition, the order of candidates would also be randomized, but a note or disclaimer would explicitly state that the order of candidates appears randomly and does not imply endorsement. By comparing the vote shares of the first-listed candidate across the two conditions, researchers could quantify the implied endorsement effect. A significant reduction in the first candidate’s vote share in the treatment condition would suggest that at least part of the ballot order effect arises from the perception of implicit favoritism.

This research would advance our understanding of voter behavior and have practical implications for election fairness. Identifying and mitigating cognitive biases in voting can contribute to designing more equitable electoral systems and improving voter trust in democratic processes.