When There's No Easy Way Out: Electoral Law Reform and Ballot Position Effects in the 2011 Hamburg State Elections

Abstract

The new electoral law in the state of Hamburg, which was first used in the 2011 elections for the state parliament, abolished the optional overall list vote in the electoral districts and thus forced voters to cast preference votes for individual candidates. Supporters of the new electoral law assume that voters will inform themselves better about the candidates. This assumption contrasts with the voters' tendency to choose their favourite option based on the little information which is provided on the ballot paper. We show that the new electoral law has missed its target and that voters rely heavily on the ballot paper cues, resulting in the replication of the behaviour pattern they were used to under the optional list vote and earlier under the closed list. Most importantly the ballot position has the largest effect on being elected to the parliament.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Kamil Marcinkiewicz is a research fellow at the University of Hamburg. His research focuses on the application of quantitative methods in the field of political sociology. He is particularly interested in elections, parliamentary behaviour, elites and party politics. He has recently published in Electoral Studies, MDA-Methods, Data, Analyses (with Markus Tepe) and Zeitschrift für Politikberatung (with Markus Tepe). Together with Bernhard Kittel he has also published a chapter on ‘Voting Behaviour and Political Institutions’ in the volume Experimental Political Science: Principles and Practices (2012, Edited by Bernhard Kittel, Wolfgang J. Luhan and Rebecca Morton).

Michael Jankowski holds a Master's degree from the University of Hamburg. His research interests include roll-call vote analysis, election studies and regional integration. He has published in the Journal of European Public Policy (with Nicolas Burmester), the Zeitschrift für Parlamentsfragen (with Cord Jakobeit, Philipp Hiller and Nils Thomsen) and The British Journal of Politics and International Relations (with Nicolas Burmester).

Notes

1. C. Jeffery and D. Hough, ‘The Electoral Cycle and Multi-Level Voting in Germany’, German Politics 10/2 (2001), pp.73–98.

2. Reuters, ‘Bayern verspricht Griechenland Hilfe statt Hetze’, 10 Dec. 2012, available from http://de.reuters.com/article/topNews/idDEBEE8B900R20121210 (accessed 11 Sept. 2013).

3. P. Horst, ‘Das neue Hamburger Wahlrecht auf dem Prüfstand: kontraproduktiv, aber schwer reformierbar’, Zeitschrift für Parlamentsfragen 42/4 (2011), pp.707–24; M. Jankowski, C. Jakobeit, P. Hiller and N. Thomsen, ‘Mehr Wahl, mehr Qual? Zum Zusammenhang von Wahlbeteiligung und neuem Wahlrecht in Hamburg’, Zeitschrift für Parlamentsfragen 44/2 (2013), pp.264–75; A. Schäfer and H. Schoen, ‘Mehr Demokratie, aber nur für wenige? Der Zielkonflikt zwischen mehr Beteiligung und politischer Gleichheit’, Leviathan 41/1 (2013), pp.94–120. For a discussion of the outcome of the election in comparison to the other elections in 2011 see J. Olsen, ‘The Spring 2011 Landtag Elections: Regional Specificities or National Electoral Dynamics?’, German Politics 21/1 (2012), pp.116–28.

4. See Horst, ‘Hamburger Wahlrecht’, for a more general discussion of the normative assumptions of the new electoral law. An overview about the reformation process of the electoral law is given in F. Decker, ‘Parlamentarische Demokratie versus Volksgesetzgebung. Der Streit um ein neues Wahlrecht in Hamburg’, Zeitschrift für Parlamentsfragen 38/1 (2007), pp.118–33; K. David, ‘Wechselfälle des Wahlrechts in Hamburg. Oder: Die Verhinderung eines weiteren Volksentscheids’, Zeitschrift für Parlamentsfragen 41/3 (2010), pp.598–622; C. Jakobeit, P. Hiller, N. Thomsen, M. Jankowski, M. Pritsch and D. Jäckel, Evaluation des neuen Hamburger Wahlrechts bei der Bürgerschaftswahl 2011. Ergebnisse einer Wähler und Nichtwählerbefragung, available from http://www.hamburgische-buergerschaft.de/get_download.php?download=3366 (accessed 6 Sept. 2013), pp.13–15.

5. T. Zittel and T. Gschwend, ‘Individualised Constituency Campaigns in Mixed-Member Electoral Systems: Candidates in the 2005 German Elections’, West European Politics 31/5 (2008), pp.978–1003.

6. L. Karvonen, ‘Preferential Voting: Incidence and Effects’, International Political Science Review 25/2 (2004), p.203.

7. An overview of the electoral systems in the German Länder can be found in L. Massicotte, ‘To Create or to Copy? Electoral Systems in the German Länder’, German Politics 12/1 (2003), pp.1–22.

8. Karvonen, ‘Preferential Voting’, p.204.

9. Ibid., p.208.

10. B.F. Schaffner, M. Streb and G. Wright, ‘Teams without Uniforms: The Nonpartisan Ballot in State and Local Elections’, Political Research Quarterly 54/1 (2001), pp.7–30.

11. T. Faas and H. Schoen, ‘The Importance of Being First: Effects of Candidates’ List Positions in the 2003 Bavarian State Election’, Electoral Studies 25/1 (2006), pp.91–102; K. Marcinkiewicz, ‘Electoral Contexts that Assist Voter Coordination: Ballot Position Effects in Poland’, Electoral Studies 33/1 (2014), pp.322–34.

12. Anthony Downs, An Economic Theory of Democracy (New York: Harper & Row, 1957); W. Riker and P. Ordershock, ‘A Theory of the Calculus of Voting’, American Political Science Review 62/1 (1968), pp.25–42.

13. G. Lutz, ‘First Come, First Served: The Effect of Ballot Position on Electoral Success in Open Ballot PR Elections’, Representation 46/2 (2010), p.167.

14. Decker, ‘Parlamentarische Demokratie’.

15. Schäfer and Schoen, ‘Mehr Demokratie’, p.104.

16. The outcome of the 2008 election is discussed in W. Jou, ‘The 2008 Hamburg Bürgerschaftswahl: Birth of a New Coalition Formula’, German Politics 18/1 (2009), pp. 96-102.

17. On Czech parliamentary elections see M. Stegmaier and V. Vlachová, ‘The Parliamentary Election in the Czech Republic, May 2010′, Electoral Studies 30/1 (2011), pp.238–41.

18. David, ‘Wechselfälle des Wahlrechts’.

19. See for example the arguments on the Homepage of Mehr Demokratie e.V, available from http://www.faires-wahlrecht.de/?page=argumente_lang (accessed 6 Sept. 2013).

20. Arthur Lupia and Mathew D. McCubbins, The Democratic Dilemma. Can Citizens Learn What They Need to Know? (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), p.1.

21. Ibid., p.2.

22. Robert Abelson and Ariel Levi, ‘Decision Making and Decision Theory’, in G. Lindzey and E. Aronson (eds.), The Handbook of Social Psychology vol. 1, 3rd ed. (New York: Random House, 1985), pp.231–309; R.R. Lau and D.P. Redlawsk, ‘Advantages and Disadvantages of Cognitive Heuristics’, American Journal of Political Science 45/4 (2001), pp.951–71.

23. Due to privacy protection Figure 1 is a ‘neutral’ version of a ballot. However, the original ballots for all 17 electoral districts are available from http://www.hamburg.de/wahlen/hamburg-wahlen/2644256/stimmzettel.html (accessed 11 Sept. 2013).

24. Herbert Weisberg, The Total Survey Error Approach. A Guide to the New Science of Survey Research (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005), pp.108–9.

25. J.M. Miller and J.A. Krosnick, ‘The Impact of Candidate Name Order on Election Outcomes’, The Public Opinion Quarterly 62/3 (1998), p.316; Schaffner et al., ‘Teams without Uniforms’.

26. R. Darcy, ‘Position Effects with Party Columns Ballots’, Western Political Quarterly 39/4 (1986), pp.646–62.

27. J. Kelly and I. McAllister, ‘Ballot Paper Cues and the Vote in Australia and Britain: Alphabetic Voting, Sex, and Title’, Public Opinion Quarterly 48/2 (1984), pp.452–66; A. Lijphart and R.L. Pintor, ‘Alphabetic Bias in Partisan Elections: Patterns of Voting for the Spanish Senate, 1982 and 1986′, Electoral Studies 7/3 (1998), pp.225–31. Kelly and McAllister found no evidence of alphabetic voting in the United Kingdom.

28. Lutz, ‘First Come, First Served’.

29. Marcinkiewicz, ‘Electoral Contexts’.

30. Faas and Schoen, ‘Importance of Being First’.

31. B. Geys and B. Feyndels, ‘Ballot Layout Effects in the 1995 Elections of the Brussels Government’, Public Choice 116/1–2 (2003), pp.147–64.

32. Don A. Dillman, Jolene D. Smith and Leah M. Christian, Internet, Mail and Mixed-Mode Surveys: The Tailored Design Method (Hoboken, NY: John Wiley and Sons, 2009), p.316.

33. Weisberg, The Total Survey Error Approach, p.109.

34. R. Darcy and I. McAllister, ‘Ballot Position Effects’, Electoral Studies 9/1 (1990), p.6.

35. The data was collected from the Homepage of the Statistikamt Nord available from http://wahlen-hamburg.statistik-nord.de/frameset.php?file=status_karte&wahl=773&frame=true (accessed 6 Sept. 2013).

36. R. Taagepera, ‘Adding Meaning to Regression’, European Political Science 10/1 (2010), pp.73–85.

37. The FDP and die Linke did not fill out every place on the ballot, which is why in some districts the electoral district tier of the FDP or die Linke consisted of fewer than six candidates. In some rare cases the electoral district tier consisted only of two candidates.

38. S. Schneider and M. Tepe, ‘Dr. Right and Dr. Wrong: Zum Einfluss des Doktortitels auf den Wahlerfolg von Direktkandidaten bei der Bundestagswahl 2009’, Politische Vierteljahresschrift 52/2 (2011), pp.248–85; M.S. Shugart, M.E. Valdini and K. Suominnen, ‘Looking for Locals: Voter Information Demands and Personal Vote-Earning Attributes of Legislators under Proportional Representation’, American Journal of Political Science 49/2 (2005), pp.437–49.

39. Damodar N. Gujarati, Basic Econometrics (Boston: McGraw-Hill, 2004), p.180.

40. Colin Cameron and Pravin Trivedi, Microeconometrics Using Stata (Texas: Stata Press, 2010), p.108.

41. These electoral districts are Hamburg-Mitte and Stellingen-Eimsbüttel-West. In Hamburg-Mitte the candidate placed on the first position received negative media coverage, which can explain why the second candidate obtained significantly more votes. See for example Hamburger Morgenpost Online, Schlammschlacht um GAL-Wahlliste, available from http://www.mopo.de/wahl-2011/wahlkampf-schlammschlacht-um-gal-wahlliste,7137908,7171984.html (accessed 20 Oct. 2013).

42. Here also a closer look at some of the candidates helps us to understand why the ballot position did not have the expected effect. For example in the electoral district Barmbek-Uhlenhorst-Dulsberg Jan Ehlers was elected to parliament although he was placed at the last place of the ballot. However, the high number of votes Ehlers gained can be explained by his prominence, since he is a former minister of one of the previous Hamburg governments. Combined with the ‘recency effect’ this can explain the change in the list order.