Title: 13inHiBB83
Author: User
Last saved by: csharman

Equichoice
THE QUESTION -the integrity of the electoral ballot
THE ANSWER - Equichoice
A Division of Harten Investments Limited, 1234 Kingston Road, Toronto, ON M1N 1P3
Telephone: 416-691-4167 x 6
Facsimile: 416-691-8112
Email: harten@hotmail.com
'Equichoice and the Equichoice system are trademarked and patented 
in various jurisdictions, including Canada

The Equichoice Ballot System*
Ballots whether printed or electronic are produced
in every permutation and combination of names, an
equal number of times
Being listed first on a ballot is 2 – 6% advantage
The heart of a democratic system
is an electoral process as free from bias as possible
"This, together with previous research documenting the existence of position bias,
should serve as evidence that as the basis of electoral reform, though not as sexy as
campaign finance reform, implementing of the Equichoice system in all jurisdictions,
may go farther to levelling the playing field for candidates, than any attempt to
regulate campaign spending."

"It is known, accepted, and proven that a candidate for office,
whose names appear at the top of a list of candidates, has a distinct advantage."
US SUPREME COURT DECISION

Using data from the 1998 Democratic Primary in New York City, which uses an
Equichoice type of name rotation, precinct by precinct, we illustrate conclusively that
being listed in first position contributed an average of 3 differential or 6 statistical
benefit to vote tallies.
The State of Ohio, similarly, in its general election shows a 2.3% to 6%
advantage for being listed first.

The Analysis of the 1998 New York City Democratic Primary Elections
The New York City democratic primary election was a vigorously contested affair. The Democratic
Party had agreed to allow name permutation in response to legal challenges, and court rulings.
It was estimated that campaign expenditures by these candidates exceeded 15 million dollars, and
encompassed about 5400 polling stations with 450,000 voters casting ballots.
Each candidate appeared an equal number of times in each ballot position.
Each position should receive an equal number of votes.
VOTE FOR EACH BALLOT POSITION
Statistical Differential
Ballot Position            Total votes cast    Number of     	advantage of    advantage to
                         1            2	          3           4       for this office    	precincts     	being first         being first
Governor          27.3%    24.0%   23.4%  25.3%    427,871             5,460                11.9                 2.3
U.S. Senator    26.8%    25.1%   24.0%   24.0%   444,410             5,460                  6.0                 1.7
Lt. Governor/,   34.9%    33.3%   31.8%                305,331             5,442                  4.6                 1.6
Atty. General    27.2%    25.2%   23.9%   23.7%   395,820             5,456                  7.3                 2.0
The researchers concluded: "The results of our analysis leave no room for doubt regarding the
existence of positional advantage. We can confidently reject the null hypothesis of no positional
bias."

The Analysis of the 1998 New York Democratic Primary Elections (continued)
EACH CANDIDATE APPEARED AN EQUAL NUMBER OF TIMES IN EACH POSITION
VOTE % FOR EACH BALLOT POSITION
EACH POSITION SHOULD RECEIVE AN EQUAL NUMBER OF VOTES
                      Statistical        Differential
Ballot Position                    Total votes cast     Number of        advantage      advantage of
District    1            2           3            4            for this office          precincts          of being first   being first
US Representative 9      27.1%    24.5%   24.5%   23.8%      45,113                   498                                         2.1%
         10    37.1%    31.6%   31.4%                    33,477          	        514                                         3.7%
                           17    50.0%    50.0%                                 23,267                  348                                          0.0%
State Senator         17    56.6%    43.4%                                  9,209                   251                                         6.6%
                              14    36.8%    31.4%   31.8%                   17,657                   208                                         3.5%
                              19    54.1%    45.9%                                14,647                   213                     Overall         4.1%
                              30    51.6%    48.4%                                28,071                   240                                          1.6%
                              32    50.3%    49.7%                                17,119                   216                     average        0.3%
State                      29    55.5%    44.5%                                  5,833                     85                                          5.5%
Assembly Member 31    53.3%    46.7%                    	         4,368           	75         		6               3.3%
                              34     51.5%     48.5%                                        3,761           		77                  		        1.5%
                             36     53.3%     46.7%                                        8,627           		75                   		        3.3%
                             42     35.5%     34.5%     30.1%                        5,774            		54                   		        2.2%
                              43     53.7%     46.3%                                        6,531           		62                  		        3.7%
                          45    24.5%    24.3%    26.8%   24.5%        9,816                  103                 		       -0.5%
                          46    38.5%    30.0%    31.7%                     6,802          	          84                 		        4.9%
                          51    54.5%    45.5%                                   4,549                    95                  		        4.5%
                          52    51.3%    48.7%                                   7,787          	        108                   		        1.3%
                          54    39.5%    30.9%    29.6%                     4,303          	        102                		        6.2%
                          55    50.8%    49.2%                                   5,632          	        104                  		        0.8%
                          56    52.3%    47.7%                                   6,465                    89                   		        2.3%
-'. •

Results of the 2000 Canadian General Election - Electoral Districts Decided by a Margin of 2%
or less (Source: Elections Canada Web Site)
Province   	Electoral District                            Margin   %Lead
Que.     		Champlain				         15     	 0.0
Que.     		Lava! Centre		                         42		 0.1
Ont.     		Leeds-Grenville                               55		 0.1
Sask.    		Saskatoon-Rosetown—Biggar	 68 		 0.3
Y.T.     		Yukon                 				 70            0.5
N.B			Tobique-Mactaquac		         147          0.5
Sask.    		Regina-Lumsden-Lake Centre	 161    	 0.5
Sask. 		Regina-Qu'Appelle			         164          0.6
Sask.     		Palliser			                         209		  0.7
Que.     		Richmond-Arthabaska                     363          0.7
Que.     		Matapedia-Matane                          276		  0.9
Ont.     		Windsor-St. Clair				 401          1.0
Que.     		Argenteuil-Papineau-Mirabel           542		 1.1
Que..    		Quebec East			                 647		 1.1
Que.     		Charlesbourg-Jacques-Cartier        822          1.4
Alta.     		Edmonton West111111111            733          1.5
P.E.I.     		Cardigan                                 	  76           1.6
N.S.     		Sackville-Musquodoboit 
        Valley-Eastem Shore      		 755          1.9
N.S.			West Nova		                         703          2.0
Que.     		Shefford		                                 891	          2.0
Candidates were listed in alphabetical order.
Elections Canada has strict rules about influencing voters on a
polling station, no logos, or even coloured folders are allowed; 
yet we allow the greatest influence of all positional preference 
to impart their decision.

INTRODUCTION
A very extensive survey of the last 12 general elections in the Irish
"Voting Matters     		 Republic (1961-1997), demonstrates the overwhelming advantage of
Journal"            		 positional bias.
"Positional Voting    	 STUDY
Bias Revisited"-
Philip Kestelman     	 An excumbent candidates running for election were alphabetically
June 15,2002           	 categorized.
 Per 1000 candidates in each alphabetical grouping the results reveal
 that candidates with an A - C surname, had 1.65 times the delectability
         of those in D - T, almost 2.00 times K - M and N - Z.
 As an interesting note, this led to charges that certain political
 parties gave preference to candidates whose surnames were in
 the A-C category.
          Surname Initial         		Electability index by surname
On average, top          	  Letter                       1961—97    1961-73    1977-82    1987-97
position gave a           
statistical 7%            	   A-C          		   1.65             1.56          1.66          1.58
advantage.(3%		   D-J   			   1.01             1.13          1.13          0.91
by differential)                   K-M		           0.70             0.76          0.63          0.73
		   N-Z			   0.85             0.68          0.65          0.99
  The conclusion drawn by the study, then was that candidates with
surnames occurring early in the alphabet, and therefore listed first on a
ballot, have a decided advantage.

COMPTON. CALIFORNIA
Sharing 1st place     	On February 8, 2002, the winning candidate for Mayor in Compton.
on the ballot was     	California was removed and replaced by the candidate who finished
worth more than      	second.
281 votes according
to expert evidence    	Supreme Court Judge Judith C. Chirlen ruled that,"... placing Eric Penoden
first on the ballot, and Omar Bradley second, violated the rule to permutate
names. Despite a 281 vote majority, the judge, based her 33 page ruling on
evidence of the primacy effect, the significant advantage of being listed first.
She ruled that in an equitable permutation of names, Mr. Omar Bradley would
have won the election.
A preponderance of evidence convinced the judge of the advantage
being listed first in terms of voter preference. The decision is currently
being appealed.
State of Ohio Elections 1992, Public Opinion Quarterly, 1998
Mirrors 
the 
results in the			Krosnick and Miller published an extensive study of precinct by precinct
New York election    	vote returns for all the 1992 elections held in the three largest counties
but was a general     	in Ohio which had implemented a ballot name permutation system.
Election.
Results of the Krosnick and Miller Study
Candidates received on average of 2.33% more votes by direct
differential, when their name appeared first on the ballot. However, in
some cases, candidates received as much as 6% more votes when
listed first, compared to being listed last.

THE EQUICHOICE BALLOT SYSTEM

. Brook D J            	 Brook and Upton Study
and Upton Gl G        	 Elections in England and Wales
applied statistics
213,414-419
  CONCLUSION:
  The position of a candidate's name on the ballot
  paper can have an important effect in terms of the number of votes
  						  they receive. In particular, the lower placed names were seriously
  disadvantaged.
Allied Research         The Allied Study of 1990, Toronto, Ontario
(D. Fielding et al)       4 fictitious candidates, Adams, Carter, Smith and Taylor
  (selected to minimize ethnic bias,) ran for an advisory
  board at various shopping centres, where shoppers
  were asked to vote for one. Ballots were presented in
  24 permutations and combinations.

Advantage of being first
POSITION ON BALLOT
TOTAL 1           2           3          4
Adams           2688    722       675       648      643
	     Carter            2671    726       681       613      641
Smith            2672     711      687        624      650
Taylor           2665     719      679        613      654
Average        2674     719      680        624      647
Equichoice and the Equichoice system are trademarked and patented in various jurisdictions, including Canada

The Infamous
FLORIDA BALLOT

If the Equichoice ballot system had been used, Al Gore
would probably have won Florida.
Bush was in first position because the party of the
incumbent Governor (Jed Bush) is awarded first
position, second most votes (democrats), second position,
others by order of registering.

If the Equichoice ballot system had been used, Al Gore
would probably have won Florida.

Bush was in first position because the party of the
incumbent Governor (Jed Bush) is awarded first
position, second most votes (democrats), second position,
Others by order of registering.
THE EQUICHOICE BALLOT SYSTEM
CANADIAN EXAMPLE
The rather bizarre circumstance of the 1996 case if R. v Taylor provides comic
illustration of the lengths to which one person went, in attempting to utilize the
the positional bias phenomenon to her benefit:
Sometime in 1994, Mrs. Taylor filed her nomination papers to be re-elected
as School Trustee, in Ward 6, in the City of Mississauga, for the November,
1994 elections. In order to ensure her re-election as School Trustee, Mrs.
Taylor convinced her daughter, Amy Taylor's boyfriend, one David Buchanan
Hunter, to run as a candidate. The theory which she espoused, was that the
person whose name appears at the top of the ballot would siphon off a certain
percentage of the vote, and thus enable Mrs. Taylor to win the election. Mrs.
Taylor obtained the nomination form, the notice of registration, the application
for addition to the voters' list. She partly prepared theses forms for David Hunter
-using the name David Buchanan - and using and address and telephone
number that had no connection with David Hunter. David Hunter did not
campaign as David Buchanan. He did not send out flyers. He did not attend
ail candidates meetings. David Buchanan became known in the community as
the "mystery candidate.' The theory proved itself in practice. Mrs. Taylor
won the election. Mrs. Taylor was convicted criminally of uttering forged
documents, namely the municipal election forms in the name of David
Buchanan. The candidate whose name would have been on the ballot first
was George Carlson. He came in second by a small margin, and successfully
brought a claim under the Ontario Municipal Elections Act to have himself
declared elected as the Trustee in Mrs. Taylor's stead.
[1996] O.J. No. 4695 (Ont. Court General Division, per Caswell J)
In the U.S., state legislatures determine the structure of ballots.
Equichoice and the Equichoice system are trademarked and patented in various jurisdictions, including Canada

THE EQUICHOICE BALLOT SYSTEM
TYPICAL DECISIONS FROM OVER 100 U.S. CASES.
The general conclusion is that any fixed order position taints the electoral process.
Elliot v Michigan ( cite as 295 MICH. 245; 294 N.W. 171)
It is a commonly known fact, that in an election, either primary or general,
where a number of candidates or nominees are before the electorate,
those whose names appear at the head of the list have a distinct advantage."
California Supreme Court Decision (Mann v. Powell 333, F . Supp. 1261)
"...a fundamental goal of a democratic society is to attain the free and pure expression
of the voters choice of candidates. To that end our state and federal constitutions
mandate that the government must, if possible avoid any feature that might adulterate,
or indeed frustrate, that free and pure choice; the state must eschew arbitrary
preferment of one candidate over another by reason of incumbency, or by alphabetical
priority of the first letter of his surname. In our governmental system, the voter's
selection must remain untainted by extraneous artful advantages imposed by weighted
procedures of the election process."
Rash v Carrington (380 U.S. 89, 96,85,SCT,775,13L.Ed 675)
"...a procedure which invariably reserves advantageous ballot positions for candidates
whose names begin with letters occurring eariy in the alphabet is unconstitutional.
The substantial advantage which occurs to a candidate in top ballot position may
significantly distort the equality and integrity of the electoral process. The simple
rationality of an alphabetical order procedure is not sufficient to sustain such a
provision in this context."
  Gould v Grubb (14 Cal. Ed 661 (Sup. Ct. of Cal.)
The State Supreme Court in California addressed a provision in the
State Election Code which provided for the names of incumbent candidates to
be listed first upon a ballot, as a result of a constitutional challenge launched
by two non-incumbent candidates. This was an appeal of a trial court decision
which, after four days of evidence from expert witnesses, had concluded that
a "ballot positional" advantage existed, and that there was no rational basis to
grant that advantage to incumbents.
In considering the trial decision, the California Supreme Court, in Gould v Grubb,
made an observation of particular relevance to the Canadian context of a single
office ballot (as opposed to a composite, multi-office ballot as is frequently used
in Canadian municipal elections), in response to an argument that ballot position
preference pertains to low visibility elections only "....the record does not support
the city's characterization of Petitioners' evidence as demonstrating that 'ballot
placement preference' occurs only in 'low visibility' elections."
Equichoice and the Equichoice system are trademarked and patented in various jurisdictions, including Canada

THE EQUICHOICE BALLOT SYSTEM
There are more
AAA companies
in the yellow
pages than ZZZ                   Why does positional preference exist?
There are complex psychological reasons for positional preference
on a ballot. Numerous studies over a 30 year period, including the
Geller, Shedletsky (Toronto) review commissioned in 1995,
indicate two linked factors.
Symbols and          		     The "SATISFYCING PRINCIPLE" people seek the first solution
signs are not           	     presented if there is no compelling reason to process further
allowed in                             information. (Primacy effect.)
polling stations                   An uncertain voter is likely to be affected by these behavioral
     laws, but even decided voters are influenced. The effect is
exaggerated by voters where their primary language is foreign
to the culture, or candidate choice is not compelling, or
voting is seen as demonstrating good citizenship. The
RESPONSE ORDER effect has been extensively studied by
psychologists. Summarized, it confirms that in a visual presentation there
Is a tendency to select the first option presented. From childhood on we
are indoctrinated with first is best, as in athletics or academic pursuits.
This will effect the association with positional to varying degrees.

As Krosnick and Miller, psychology researchers wrote in Public Opinion
Quarterly 1998, "if a citizen feels compelled to vote in races
regarding which he or she may have no substantive basis for choice
he or she may simply settle for the first name listed, because no
reason is apparent suggesting that the candidate is unacceptable."
Equichoice and the Equichoice system are trademarked and patented in various jurisdictions, including Canada

ft
THE EQUICHOICE BALLOT SYSTEM
Producing the Ballots
As will be demonstrated ballots are produced in random
permutations so that every candidate is represented in every
position an equal number of times, regardless of how many
ballots are needed.
The appropriate information and program would be supplied by
Elections Canada to a printer, and security features can be easily
incorporated. The printing "run" lets us know how many times each
candidate is in each position.
There should not be any appreciable cost difference for printing.
Ballots are counted in the usual way, or encoded for scanning etc.
The same principles apply for touch screen voting.

CONCLUSION
             The Equichoice system eliminates the positional preference in
order and proximity sequence and ensures a fair electoral process
without bias or discrimination affecting candidates or voters.

Equichoice and the Equichoice system are trademarked and patented in various jurisdictions, including Canada