|
|
|
November 9, 2000
Statement by Don A. Dillman on Palm Beach County Florida Ballot[1]
Several
people have asked for my opinion on whether the format of the November 7, 2000,
general election ballot in Palm Beach County, Florida, resulted in more people
voting for Buchanan that had intended to do so.
This statement is in response to those requests. I
cannot say with certainty whether the format of this ballot affected a certain
number of people who thus voted by mistake for Pat Buchanan, while intending to
vote for another candidate. That would require knowledge of what specific people
did in the voting booth Tuesday, which I don’t have.
However, based on my experiences and past research concerning how the
visual format of questionnaires affects respondents to surveys, I believe it is
likely that certain visual features of the ballot resulted in some individuals
who wished to vote for Gore inadvertently punching the second hole in the
column, thus resulting in a vote for Buchanan.
These visual attributes may also have resulted in double punches as
people attempted to correct their error. However,
I do not think that voters who intended to vote for Bush were similarly
affected. I
believe this outcome occurred because of the joint effects of several
undesirable features of the Palm Beach County ballot, rather than a single
attribute. These factors include:
(1) the listing of some candidates for President on the left-hand page of
the ballot, while others were listed in a separate group on the right-hand page;
(2) use of a single column of circles between the pages to register one’s
vote, regardless of which page contained the candidate’s name; (3) the lack of
familiarity some people may have had with how to answer a punch ballot printed
in this format; (4) the likelihood that most people knew which candidate they
wanted to vote for prior to seeing any of the choices on the ballot; (5) the
location of the presidential choices on the first pages of the ballot; and (6)
the visual process people typically follow when registering preferences on a
survey questionnaire or election ballot when it is unnecessary to read all
choices (names of presidential candidates, for example) before registering
one’s vote. In order to mark their
ballot, it was necessary for people to insert their paper ballot underneath the
booklet that showed the ballot choices. They were then required to use a
stick-pin answering device to punch through a circle on the ballot to make a
hole in the paper ballot. When
people open and/or begin to read material printed in a booklet format, they tend
to look first at the left-hand page and focus their attention there.
Because this is a ballot in which most people expect to vote on most or
all of the choices, it is also likely that they would expect to answer the
questions in order. It is therefore
likely that many voters began reading the left-hand page without first looking
at the second page and seeing what material was printed there.
Thus, they may have been
unaware that some of the candidates for president were listed on the opposite
page. Most
people who completed the ballot knew who they wanted to vote for prior to
reading the list of names. Thus,
rather than attempting to read all of the answer possibilities before marking
their choice, they simply looked for the name of the candidate for whom they
wished to vote. The typical procedure would be to start at the top of the list
and read downwards until the preferred candidate was found. After
reading the first candidate’s name (Bush) on the left-hand page, people who
wanted to vote for him should have been guided to the answer column by the
number and an arrow. That circle
was also the first (or top) circle in the answer column.
It therefore seems quite unlikely that the voter would by-pass the first
circle and mark the second circle, thereby voting for Buchanan, by mistake. In
contrast, people who wanted to vote for Gore, and had just seen Bush’s name,
would be expected to go straight down the page as they searched for Gore’s
name. After finding it, people are
likely to have moved their fingers and thumb that held the stick-pin punching
device to the appropriate punching location.
It is likely that in the process of doing this some people (particularly
those who are right-handed) did not see the number and arrow pointing to the
appropriate answer circle because it was obscured by their hand.
They may have also concluded that the second hole in the column was the
correct one to punch, simply because Gore was the second candidate on the page.
Thus, both the locational feature (being second) and mechanics of
answering seem likely to have worked together in a way that led some people to
inadvertently punch the second hole (Buchanan choice) rather than the third hole
(Gore choice). The
possibility that some circles in the column of possible answers applied to
Buchanan (on the next page) is unlikely to have occurred to some respondents.
It is most unusual for any ballot or questionnaire to list choices to the
first page to the right of the names, while choices to the second page are
listed to the left of the names, and in addition to have all of them listed in a
single column. Therefore, I would
expect that some respondents had no idea that any of the choices in the answer
column applied to the next page instead of to the candidates on page one.
This problem was accentuated by the presidential preference being listed
on the first page of the ballot, before the respondent had figured out, through
experience, exactly how the ballot worked. It does seem likely that some respondents who marked the second circle would have noticed that it was not aligned with the Gore box in the same way as the first circle was aligned with the Bush. box.
However, among those who noticed the different alignment this feature may
have been discounted, because of their having to link together physically
separate components (the actual paper ballot and the booklet listing candidate
names) and the association of the second circle in the column with the second
candidate (Gore) choice. I
would also expect that some ballots were double punched (Gore and Buchanan) as
voters started to punch the second circle,
realized they were making an error, and attempted to recover from it. Despite
the visual and mechanical problems that individually and jointly increase the
likelihood that Gore preference voters unintentionally and unknowingly voted for
Buchanan, the nature of the problem is such that it would not affect most
voters. Most people are able
to “figure-out” how to answer questions when they are presented in a
visually inappropriate way, as was done in this situation.
However, I am also confident that some Gore-preference voters would have
made the error described above. At
the same time, and for the reasons described above, Bush-preference voters were
not likely to make the same mistake.
[1]Don A. Dillman is the Thomas Foley Distinguished Professor of Government and Public Policy at Washington State University in Pullman, Washington. The opinions expressed here are his own and should not be attributed to his employer, Washington State University, or to the American Association for Public Opinion Research, for which he now serves as Vice-President and President-Elect. Background on the theory and research that lead to the interpretations reported here are published in Chapter 3 of Dillman, Don A. 2000 Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method, New York: John Wiley; and Jenkins, Cleo R. and Don A. Dillman 1997 “Towards a Theory of Self-Administered Questionnaire Design,” Chapter 7 of Lyberg, Lars, et al., Survey Measurement and Process Quality, (pp.165-196,) New York: Wiley Interscience. |
|
|