1. intresting.

2. Richard,

   I just looked at my roommate’s Ohio absentee ballot and Chuck Baldwin is certainly not the first name on the ballot (Cynthia McKinney is). However, in all other offices candidates are in alphabetical order, but this may be part of a random assortment.

   I was a recount observer in Ohio in 2004, and I’m almost positive that the names were rotated in different precincts. I could swear recalling that candidates’ places on the ballot were switched precinct to precinct.

3. I just looked at Ohio law on the issue (ORC 3505.03):

   The names of all candidates for an office shall be arranged in a group under the title of that office, and, except for absentee ballots or when the number of candidates for a particular office is the same as the number of candidates to be elected for that office, shall be rotated from one precinct to another. On absentee ballots, the names of all candidates for an office shall be arranged in a group under the title of that office and shall be so alternated that each name shall appear, insofar as may be reasonably possible, substantially an equal number of times at the beginning, at the end, and in each intermediate place, if any, of the group in which such name belongs, unless the number of candidates for a particular office is the same as the number of candidates to be elected for that office.

   The method of printing the ballots to meet the rotation requirement of this section shall be as follows: the least common multiple of the number of names in each of the several groups of candidates shall be used, and the number of changes made in the printer’s forms in printing the ballots shall correspond with that multiple. The board of elections shall number all precincts in regular serial sequence. In the first precinct, the names of the candidates in each group shall be listed in alphabetical order. In each succeeding precinct, the name in each group that is listed first in the preceding precinct shall be listed last, and the name of each candidate shall be moved up one place. In each precinct using paper ballots, the printed ballots shall then be assembled in tablets.

4. Thank you, Stine. You’re right. I’ll fix my error. Ohio rotates in every precinct.

5. I voted absentee in Mississippi and it was listed as John McCain, Barack Obama, and then Chuck Baldwin, Bob Barr etc. I guess the two major parties are in their own alphabetical class.

6. There have been studies regarding whether some voters are more likely to vote the candidate at the top of the list, so this is quite an interesting discussion topic. Often political machines will place their party’s candidates on top. I know that is the case here in Nebraska.

7. Dean Barkley is listed at the top in the MN Senate race. Because of that I think he’ll break 10%. Having to hoover their pen over the two major candidates would probably make a lot of people not go third party.

8. In 2004, there was an interesting effect of Ohio’s ballot rotation. Cuyahoga County (Cleveland) was still using punch card ballots. The punch cards do not show candidate names, but instead are punched with a punch guide that shows the candidate names, with arrows pointing to where to punch to select each candidate.

   Because of Ohio’s ballot rotation, Kerry would be Hole 3 in one precinct, Hole 4 in the next numbered precinct, then Hole 5, Hole 1, and Hole 2, and back to Hole 3.

   The candidates remain in alphabetical order, with simply a differerent leader in each precinct. In 2004, the order was Badnarik, Bush, Kerry, (Nader), Peroutka. Nader has been disqualified late in the election process, but he retained his place in the ballot rotation between Kerry and Peroutka, with the voting guide saying something like “No Candidate”. If a voter wanted to register a protest against the exclusion, they could easily punch that hole – which was not formally tabulated in the results.

   Ohio uses relatively small election precincts, perhaps so voters without cars can walk to their polling places. But it also means that there might not be a suitable building for a polling place in the precinct. As a result, sometimes 2 or more precincts share the same polling place.
   But because of the ballot rotation, these precincts would not share the same ballot order, even if they shared all the same election races, and this created the potential mixups.

   For example, if a voter from Precinct 7 was directed to a voting booth with a punch guide for Precinct 8, all would look normal. He might see Kerry, (No Candidate), Peroutka, Badnarik, Bush; instead of Bush, Kerry, (No Candidate), Peroutka, Badnarik. But it would be unlikely that he would know or care about his precinct’s ballot order. So if he attempted to vote for Kerry he might instead be punching the (No Candidate) hole for his precinct. If he then placed his completed ballot in the ballot box for Precinct 7, his vote would be tabulated as a vote for (No Candidate).

   Alternatively, a voter might use the proper punching guide, but deposit his punched ballot in the ballot box for another precinct.

   In some cases, the precincts that shared a polling location were not consecutively numbered. For example Precinct 7, might have Precinct 8 to the east, and Precinct 9 the the southeast, and Precinct 10 to the south; with Precincts 7 and 10 sharing a polling place. If there was a difference of two, then intended Kerry votes could be tabulated for Badnarik or Peroutka, and the mixup would be more obvious. If the difference in precinct numbers was one, then intended Kerry votes could be tabulated for Bush or (No Candidate). It is possible that the tabulating software was deliberately set up to ignore (No Candidate) punches, so that punches for Bush and Kerry would be detected as an (invalid) overvote, while punches for (No Candidate) were counted as undervotes, and votes for Peroutka and (No Candidate) as a simple vote for Peroutka, rather than as an overvote.

9. This is an off topic question, but I don’t know where else to ask it.

   I seem to remember that some novice Virginia political organization filed petitions to put Michael Bloomberg & Ron Paul on the ballot for President & Vice President.

   Were they successful? Will they be on the November ballot in that state?

10. The Virginia organization was the Independent Green Party of Virginia. Virginia allows substitution. Since both Mayor Bloomberg and Ron Paul asked the Independent Green Party not to put them on the ballot, the Independent Green Party then took them off and put the Constitution Party nominees on. So Baldwin is listed as “Independent Green.” There was really nothing else useful to do with the petition, since the Libertarian, Green Parties, and Ralph Nader, had done their own petition, so they didn’t need the help of the Independent Green Party petition. The Independent Green Party got Baldwin to commit to supporting their pet idea of light rail for the D.C. suburbs.

11. The relevant law in Michigan is MCL 168.703:

    /==============================================
    168.703 Official ballots; position of parties.

    Sec. 703.

    The ticket of the party having the greatest
    number of votes in the state at the last
    election in which a secretary of state was
    elected, as shown by the votes cast thereat
    for secretary of state, shall be placed first
    on the ballot, the position of other party
    tickets to be governed relatively by the same
    rule.
    ==============================================/

    This is why the Green Party is the “first third party” listed on Michigan ballots: Greens had a SOS candidate in 2006; the US Taxpayers (Constitution), Libertarian, and Natural Law Parties didn’t. I think the other three are listed in this order because of their top finishers in other races in 2006 — the candidates who topped the threshold in MCL 168.685(6): 1% of the total votes for the SOS winner.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.