International ballots and other election souvenirs

Here are photos of some ballots I recently found in storage.

The first is from the 1997 Liberian general election. I think it is a ballot from the presidential race, which technically happens under two-round runoff (but did not matter in this case).

The next is from Ghana (presidential), 1996. Again, the rules seem to have been two-round, but a runoff did not happen.

Our third is from Iraq, probably in 2005, and is translated to have come from elections to the Kirkuk Provincial Council. The electoral system appears to be closed-list PR.

The next ballot is from a Kosovo Municipal Assembly election, year 2000. It suggests a list-PR system allowing for preference votes. Note the option on the left to vote for a party list, then the option on the right to vote for a candidate by entering an ID number. The description I just gave is consistent with a range of open- or flexible-list rules. Wikipedia does not say what the rules were. The OSCE provides detailed results.

The last thing I found is not a ballot but instead a blank petition from the signature drive that produced the 2018 People’s Veto referendum in Maine. That re-legalized the Alternative Vote for state and federal elections, although eventual implementation was for party primaries and congressional general elections.

Teaching public opinion with student-created data

I like to use student-generated data to illustrate course concepts. The core of the exercise in this case is a survey the students wrote, to which I added standard items on party identification and self-reported ideology.

The students’ 30 items covered many topics, some of which were very salient and others less so (which is good). I recall there being items on a TikTok ban, mask mandates, existence of climate change, trust in politicians/parties, and even attitudes toward the UK.

I plan to go back to these data as we move through the course. For now, the goals are to illustrate party identification, ideological self-identification, and revealed ideology; see to what extent these hang together; and just see what other things come to mind as we discuss the results.

One way to represent the data is as a set of ideal points. This helps start (or continue) a conversation about ‘revealed ideology.’

The first-dimension coordinates are highly correlated (0.7) with ideological self-placement:

The first-dimension score is a bit less strongly correlated with party ID (0.64 versus 0.7 for self-reported ideology). Meanwhile, party ID and self-reported ideology are highly correlated at 0.8:

My ideal point is (0.33, 0.33)! Modeling a second dimension raises accuracy from 88% to 92%. Items for which the second dimension markedly improves accuracy include: poverty reduction by state (not federal) government, whether federal officials are working in “your best interest,” school vouchers, “unconditional” aid to allies, soda/pop regulation, and whether law enforcement professionals should recuse themselves from politics.

Here are the three measures above, broken out by gender. I captured gender with an open-ended question (text box):

The survey was anonymous, but I gave people the option to supply a nickname. That lets those who did so find themselves in the data if they want.

What is a “multi-party primary”?

There is some controversy over what to call the various “top-X”/“jungle primary” electoral systems now in vogue. The National Conference of State Legislatures now offers the term “multi-party primary” with the following definition:

A small but growing number of states hold a single primary in which all candidates, regardless of party, are listed on a single ballot. States vary in the number of candidates who advance out of this primary to the general election…

Elections for Nebraska’s unicameral, nonpartisan legislature closely mirror this process except ballots do not identify the candidates’ party.

I prefer the term “nonpartisan two-round system” (NPTRS) for two reasons. First, I take my definition of “partisan election” from literature in which some formal process governs a candidate’s use of the party label on a ballot, i.e., there is an actual endorsement. Second, some of that literature is in comparative politics, and since the goal is to import a “comparative” electoral system, it may help to bring with it the terminology used to analyze the working of such systems.

Another way to make the second point is to note that these reforms at least pretend to favor multi-party politics (see the name given above to the first-round election). But there are no parties, formally speaking, and that may matter for their long-term operation.

If we need a term for only the first round, I prefer winnowing or preliminary election. This is the term used in some cities to describe an election whose purpose is to reduce the number of candidates proceeding to the next round (typically but not necessarily a general election).

Controversy about using the word “nonpartisan” boils down to the fact that party labels do appear on some states’ ballots (as described above). However, on closer inspection, these labels are just indications of party affiliation, and we all get to choose the one we want when we register to vote. It’s not a party endorsement arrived at either collectively, or via some collectively legitimated process written down in either public law or party bylaws.

Portion of an Alaskan sample ballot from a first-round election, held 20 August 2024.

I might be okay with “jungle primary” simply because many instantly know what it means. “Top X” or “top C” also works and may carry less baggage, although it is not widely used.