When attention shapes accountability: Ballot order and information weighting

Why do voters fail to sanction candidates even when credible information about misconduct is disclosed? We argue that political accountability depends not only on whether information is disclosed, but also on the institutional context in which voters encounter it. Using randomize-and-rotate ballot ordering in nonpartisan superintendent of education elections, we exploit within-candidate variation in ballot position under a common electoral contest. Candidates with ordinary criminal records receive fewer votes when listed first than when they appear in other positions, while candidates with pro-democracy-related convictions receive more votes when listed first. Wealthier candidates likewise receive fewer votes when appearing first. These results show that the electoral consequences of disclosed candidate attributes vary with ballot position and suggest that voter attention matters for how such information translates into electoral outcomes.