Order in Chaos: Ballot Order Effects in a Post-Conflict Election?

Order in Chaos: Ballot Order Effects in a Post-Conflict Election?

Abstract

Ballot order effects are well documented in established democracies, but less so in fragile post-conflict settings. We test for the presence of ballot order effects in the 2010 parliamentaryelection in Afghanistan. Turning out for the 2010 election was a potentially life-threatening endeavor for the Afghan voter. The election provides a first look at ballot order effects in a high stakes, post-conflict setting. In this setting limited cognitive skills and information are more likely explanations of potential ballot order effects than mechanisms of lacking of effort or ambivalence of choice. Importantly, we find no evidence of a positive effect on the vote share of a higher ballot position.

Keywords: ballot order effects; biases; conflict; post-conflict elections, Afghanistan

Word count: 1,986

INTRODUCTION

Democratic elections are the mechanism by which legitimate political leadership is chosen in most developed countries. Thus we like to think of candidate choice as a thoughtful process governed bythe policy preferences of voters. Yet ballot order effects in democratic elections are well documented across a number of different countries and election settings(Miller & Krosnick, 1998; Krosnick et al. 2004;Koppell & Steen, 2004; Kim et al. 2013; Webber et al. 2014). Ballot order effects entail that candidates placed higher on the ballot receive more votes solely due to their ballot position. Often these effects are estimated as primacy effects of being the first candidate on the list. For instance, Miller and Krosnick (1998) found that candidates listed first in 1992 Ohio election had an electoral advantage over candidates listed below the top spot.

Here we test for the presence of ballot order effects in the case of the 2010 parliamentary election in Afghanistan. The elections provide a first look at ballot order effects in ahigh stakes, post-conflict setting. Participating in the 2010 election was a dangerous choice. Both the UN and US security expects had warned of potential threats to the safety of voters, and around 8 percent of the5,816 voting locations were closed due to security concerns. Indeed, people had good reasons to expect violence since the period surrounding the presidential election in the previous year had seen the highest number of civilian casualties since the fall of the Taleban in 2002(AIHRC-UNAMA, 2009). On election dayitself news agencies reported that at least 14 people were killed (BBC Online, 2010). Partly as a consequence of the increased threat level, only 3.9 million ofthe 10 million eligible voters turned out.

What then could be the underlying mechanism of ballot order effects in the case of Afghanistan? Kim et al. (2013) find that ballot order effects are stronger for voters who 1) havelittle information about the candidates, 2) feel ambivalence about candidates, 3) have limited cognitive skills, and 4) allocate little effort to candidate evaluation. These factors all tend to make voters more susceptible to arbitrary order effects. We argue that some of these factors are more likely to explain potential ballot order effects in the Afghan setting. On the one hand we can expect that the high illiteracy of the Afghan electorate and lack of experience with democratic elections implythat the electorate has limited candidate information and cognitive skills to deploy for candidate selection. This should translate intopotentially strong ballot order effects. On the other hand we can expect the post-conflict setting of Afghanistan to provide strong incentives for picking the right candidate. This argument is in line withHo& Imai (2008) who find that ballot order effects disappear in high stakes US elections. We may view Afghanistan as an extreme case of this. Further, the potential life-threatening act of voting should induce those selecting into turnout to have a clear and consciously conceived idea of who to vote for.People who do not care much about the act of voting or the outcome of it would be unlikely to brave the dangers of election day in Afghanistan. On balance, wetherefore have mechanisms at work which should both enhance and reduce ballot order effects in the case of Afghanistan.The paper is thereby able to shed some light on the relative weight of the mechanisms underlying ballot order effects: If we find ballot order effects in Afghanistan, then limited information and cognitive skills are more likely explanations than lacking effort and ambivalence.

DATA AND DESIGN

On the 18th of September 2010 Afghan parliamentary election were held. The parliamentary elections determined who were to be members of the Wolesi Jirga(the House of the People). Our data consists of ballot information and elections results from each of the 34 provinces for this election. We have obtained the total number of votes obtained for each candidate in every provincealong with their ballot position (IEC 2013).In the smallest district the ballot contained 12 candidates while the largest district of Kabul had664 candidates (Median = 47).

Afghanistan is a particular well-suited case to study ballot order effects due to its single non-transferable voting system (SNTV). Each voter casts one vote for a candidate in a set of potentially unlimited number of candidates. The candidates receiving the most votes fill the predefined number of seats allocated to each electoral district. The SNTV impedes the development of political parties as votes cannot be transferred among candidates (GoodhandSedra 2007; TadjbakhshSchoiswohl2008). Therefore, elections to the Wolesi Jirgainvolve large numbers of independent candidates and in 2010 more than 2500 candidates contested a total of 249 seats. All of the elected candidates were independents.

Ballot order in Afghanistan is determined by a random lottery which allows the data generating process to be treated as a randomized experiment. However, if strong ballot order effects exist and if these are known there will be equally strong incentives to manipulate the ballot order by political or administrative elites (Meredith Salant 2013). This poses a particular problem in a highly corrupt state such as Afghanistan. Any manipulation of the candidate order would invalidate the natural experimental setting by inducing unobservable confounders affecting both order an election outcomes. One way of testing for manipulation is to make sure that candidate order is uncorrelated with candidate background characteristics.

We conduct two such tests. First, we look for irregularities in the distribution of women on each ballot. In Afghanistan’s highly religious and patriarchal society we would expect that intentional manipulation of the ballot order would result in lower average ballot order position for women. However, the data shows that there is no significant difference in the ballot order position of male and female candidates (d=0.7, p=0.913). Second, for the candidates elected we observe if they are incumbents or not. If manipulation of ballot order had taken place we would expect elected incumbents to have a higher ballot position than elected non-incumbents as the former would have been able to leverage their position in the manipulation effort. Again the data does not suggest that this is the case (d=21.5, p=0.288).In summary, we find it plausible to assume that candidate order was not manipulated and was therefore exogenous to any candidate qualities or resources which could affect their vote share.

EMPIRICAL FINDINGS

The main findings are presented in figure1. Here the candidates’relative ballot positionis plotted against each candidate’s vote share.[1] For the full sample we see no significant effect of ballot position on a candidate’s vote share (b=0.001, p=0.409). Thisnull resultis also robust to the exclusion of the Kabul district, which has a much longer ballot than the others (b=0.002, p=0.409). Further, the results hold if weuse logged ballot position and control for logged ballot length (b=0.001, p=0.703) or only estimate the model on districts with ballot length below the medianof 46 (b=0.01, p=0.086).

FIGURE 1

Another way of measuring ballot order effects is to compare vote shares of those at the very top of the ballot with everybody else (Meredith & Salant 2013). Here we continue to control for logged ballot length to account for the fact that smaller lists come with larger average vote shares for each candidate and increase the probability of a given candidate being at the top of the list.

On average the first candidate on the ballot got a somewhat larger vote share than everybody else but the difference is not significant (d=0.141, p=0.776). This effect is marginally significant if we compare the top ten (d=0.461, p=0.045) but not significant for the top five (d=0.148, p=0.525). However, the top ten-effect is driven entirely by three outliers. If these are removed the effect disappears (d=0.287, p=0.209). On balance we do not find any support for the idea of ballot order effects in Afghanistan.

CONCLUSION

Some have downplayed the substantive effects of ballot order on democratic outcomes (Miller and Krosnick 1998). Others find that order effects have actually been pivotal in deciding between winners and losers in high stake elections (Koppel and Steen 2008). The findings presented here find no support for a ballot order effect for the case of Afghanistan. Turning out for the 2010 Afghan election was a dangerous business. The absence of ballot order effects in the chaotic post-conflict setting of Afghanistan points to limits of the phenomenon which has previously has been identified for elections of varying importance in stable democracies.The findings raise the question if ballot order effects are mainly drivenby an overburdened and ambivalent electorate in low stakesWestern democratic elections. We have argued that the dangers, high stakes, and clear conflict lines in Afghanistan should lead to a high level of effort and a low level of ambivalence in the average voter turning out. At the same time the high Afghan illiteracy rate and lack of experience with democratic elections should imply that the electorate has limited cognitive skills and information. The null finding point to that the latter was not a sufficient condition for the electorate to use candidate order as a short cut. The finding raises the broader question of how generalizable anomalies found in political behavior in the developed world are to post-conflict democracies.

REFERENCES

AIHRC-UNAMA: Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission- United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan. (2009). Joint Monitoring of Political Rights, Presidential and Provincial Council Elections, Third Report. UNAMA.

BBC Online (2010): 'Brave' Afghan voters hailed amid Taliban threats, 19 September 2010. Link:
Goodhand, J., & Sedra, M. (2007). Bribes or bargains? Peace conditionalities and ‘post-conflict’reconstruction in Afghanistan. International Peacekeeping, 14(1), 41-61.

Ho, D. E., & Imai, K. (2008). Estimating Causal Effects of Ballot Order from a Randomized Natural Experiment The California Alphabet Lottery, 1978–2002. Public Opinion Quarterly, 72(2), 216-240.

Independent Election Commission of Afghanistan. (2013). Results by Ballot Order. Wolesi Jirga Election Final Certified Results. (September 17 2013).

Mantonakis, A., Rodero, P., Lesschaeve, I., & Hastie, R. (2009). Order in choice: Effects of serial position on preferences. Psychological Science, 20, 1309-1312

Miller, J. M., & Krosnick, J. A. (1998).The impact of candidate name order on election outcomes.Public Opinion Quarterly, 291-330.

Meredith, M., & Salant, Y. (2013).On the causes and consequences of ballot order effects.Political Behavior, 35(1), 175-197.

Kim, N., Krosnick, J., & Casasanto, D. (2013). Moderators of Candidate Name Order Effects in Elections: An Experiment.Working paper.

King, A., & Leigh, A. (2009). Are Ballot Order Effects Heterogeneous?Social Science Quarterly, 90(1), 71-87.

Koppell, J. G., & Steen, J. A. (2004). The effects of ballot position on election outcomes. Journal of Politics, 66(1), 267-281.

Tadjbakhsh, S., & Schoiswohl, M. (2008). Playing with fire? The international community's democratization experiment in Afghanistan.International Peacekeeping, 15(2), 252-267.

Webber, R., Rallings, C., Borisyuk, G., & Thrasher, M. (2014). Ballot Order Positional Effects in British Local Elections, 1973–2011. Parliamentary Affairs, 67(1), 119-136.

1

[1] Using the relative vote share is standard in existing studies (King & Leigh 2009)