I try to be pretty politically-neutral here at ICFAB, such as with this post, but I heard an interview with this fellow this morning on National Public Radio, and just had to comment on it.
According to Jon A. Krosnick, a professor of communication, political science and psychology at Stanford, “Candidates listed first on the ballot get about two percentage points more votes on average than they would have if they had been listed later.”
“In 1996, Bill Clinton’s vote tally was 4 percentage points higher in the Assembly districts where he was listed first than in the ones where he was listed last.”
And
“In 2000, George W. Bush’s vote tally was 9 percentage points higher in the districts where he was listed first than in the districts where he was listed last.”
I can't help wondering: if this is really the case, should people who are that easily-swayed really be permitted to vote?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I've wondered the same thing in regard to any campaign ad you could name. It doesn't matter whether you are a R or a D or an EIEIO, if you are making your voting choice based on the ads on TV... should you REALLY be voting??
Post a Comment