Iowa's Auditors Favoring Own Parties In Ballot Ordering

I've discovered a serious voting fairness issue in Iowa. In a nutshell, the candidate who is listed first tends to get more votes because of the few uninformed voters who are just circling in the form to say they voted, or think they need to vote for every position whether they know the candidates or not.

The "ballot order effect" is something that was recognized as far back as 60 BC in the Roman Empire, and has also been confirmed by modern researchers. A study from the University of Vermont (http://bit.ly/9SYF1g) showed that candidates listed first received, "on average, two-and-half percent more of the vote than listed after."

When I contacted our Auditor Mary Mosiman about this by email, she promptly and politely informed me that in Iowa, the county auditors choose which party to list first, and that most choose their own party as she has done.

That seems somewhat fair at first, but if you think about it, it effectively means that one elected official who is supposed to represent a fair and impartial electoral process already has taken at least one action in favor of a party, by convention, as their first decision in managing the election. This sets a bad precedent, and cynically conveys the idea to our county auditors that preferential treatment of a party by someone in their position is acceptable in our election process.

13 other states have randomized ballot ordering mandated by law, and Federal positions have a less desirable, but more fair rotation mandated as well.  Since the ballots need to be printed in smaller batches in this situation, it may add some to the ballot printing cost- but this is insignificant compared with ensuring that the elections are credible and fair in an age where voters are losing trust in the system.
 

- Originally submitted to the Ames Tribune as a Letter to the Editor Sep 30, 2010