Are Professors today stupid - Democratic Underground

Bitwit1234

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jan-09-08 11:37 AM
Original message

Are Professors today stupid

A Maine Professor said today that the reason Clinton won is her name is first. Well since when did the order of the alphabet cause a win.

Since the 1900's...Ike, Bush and Nixon are the only presidents whose opponents were lower in the alphabet. And in the few I checked out it didn't make any difference in some of the others.

I guess the Obama doodle boppers HAVE to have a reason of an outside influence he lost. The reason was, more people voted for Hillary. Period

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Fresh_Start

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jan-09-08 11:38 AM
Response to Original message

1. Actually she was second on the ballot. Biden was first

presumably the professor knew that.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

TahitiNut

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jan-09-08 11:41 AM
Response to Original message

2. That's why many states mandate random-order on ballots, differing from one precinct to another..

The "first name listed" on the ballot has been known, for a long time, to garner about a 1-2% edge over the field. It's NOT "psuedo-science." The question I'd have is whether the order of the names presented on the ballots statewide was identical in New Hampshire.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Hosnon

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jan-09-08 11:43 AM
Response to Reply #2

5. Yeah I would assume it has a benefit. The first on the list is the first to

concretely enter the mind of an undecided voter. A quasi-favorable opinion could be formed which the lower candidates must then overcome.

Random order which differs from precinct to precinct is a good fix.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

LeftCoast

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jan-09-08 11:41 AM
Response to Original message

3. With a long list of candidates, position on the upper side of the list has been correlated with more

votes.

:shrug:

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

dbackjon

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jan-09-08 11:42 AM
Response to Original message

4. It actually DOES make a difference

Politicians fight over ballot position. Studies HAVE shown that it makes a 1-5% difference, based on how many people are on the ballot - the more on the ballot, the greater the bump.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

fishwax

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jan-09-08 11:43 AM
Response to Original message

6. In a general election, presidential candidates wouldn't necessarily appear in alphabetical order

Edited on Wed Jan-09-08 11:44 AM by fishwax

"Since the 1900's...Ike, Bush and Nixon are the only presidents whose opponents were lower in the alphabet."

But I agree that the "alphabet" theory to explain last night's results doesn't hold up ...

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

L. Coyote

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jan-09-08 11:47 AM
Response to Original message

7. This is common knowledge. It varies by state. This is how Gore lost Florida.

Some states rotate candidate order, others do not, because there is up to a 1% advantage to being on top of the list. Basic human nature!

In Florida, the party of thew elected governor goes first on every ballot. That's a 1% advantage. If Jeb Bush had lost the election, Gore would be President. Kinda ridiculous, but such is true history!

Because Ohio rotated ballot orders and had more than one ballot order at voting locations, switching punch card ballots to the wrong precinct changed the voting results. The solution, rotating candidate order, created instead an easy way to fix elections!

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

mike_c

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jan-09-08 11:47 AM
Response to Original message

8. are voters today stupid...?

There really is a correlation between placement on the ballot and some degree of success, probably because some voters are undecided and simply check some "random" candidate, but more often near the top of the ballot than not, or because some voters misunderstand the ballot, or make a mistake, etc, and again choose a "random" entry on the ballot, more often at or near the top.

It is erroneous to assert that is the reason that anyone won an election without additional data, but if the contest is very close, it likely DOES have an effect on the outcome.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Sweet Pea

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jan-09-08 12:20 PM
Response to Original message

9. Doh n/t

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

DU AdBot (1000+ posts)

Thu May 02nd 2024, 06:06 PM
Response to Original message

Advertisements [?]

Top

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.