It won’t go down as “must-see TV,” but Wednesday was an important day for candidates on the 2024 Pennsylvania primary ballot.
It was the “casting of lots” – the day when candidates for office find out how they will be listed on the primary ballot.
Candidates had already submitted how they want their name to be listed – Steve versus Stephen, for example. But who is listed first – Smith or Jones? That’s where the lots come in.
In the Pennsylvania general election, the party in control of the governor’s mansion gets their candidate listed first. So the Democratic candidate will be listed before the Republican candidate with other party nominees to follow.
Since Pennsylvania has a closed primary, both major parties have their own ballot. It is the charge of the Secretary of the Commonwealth – Al Schmidt – to establish the order in which the names of the candidates are to appear on the ballot.
According to former Department of State press secretary Grace Griffaton, “It is the Secretary of the Commonwealth’s prescribed manner, and the Department’s long-standing practice, to allow candidates to cast lots – i.e., pick numbers out of a bag – in the order in which they file their nomination petitions. All candidates may appear in person for the ballot lottery; however, their presence is not required.”
In local elections, counties vary how they randomly select positions. In Armstrong County, numbered ping pong balls between 1-29 are drawn. In York County, numbered tags between 1-1,000 are drawn from an UTZ potato chip can. And in Philly, balls are chosen from the Horn and Hardart coffee can, which has its own parody twitter feed.
When all is said and done and the numbers have been drawn, is there an advantage to being listed first?
Yes, say Jonathan G. Koppell and Jennifer A. Steen. In 2004, the Yale and Boston College scholars studied 79 New York City Democratic primary contests and found that in 71 of them, candidates received a greater proportion of votes when they were listed first compared to any other position they were listed in.
In the three statewide races with four or more candidates (i.e. governor, lieutenant governor, U.S. Senator), the top name received more than 25 percent of the vote, providing an advantage of between 1.6 and 2.3 percent.
In races for local office, such as Congressman and state legislature, the effect is even larger, although in some cases not statistically significant. In 67 of the 75 contested primaries, the first position received more than its expected percentage of the vote with the median advantage at 3.6 percent.
Delbert A. Taebel of the University of Texas at Arlington stated in a 1975 study that candidates listed first enjoy an advantage, but not so much when voters had high recognition of candidate names, such as could be the case in the Pennsylvania U.S. Senate campaigns. However, low name recognition meant that voters were less likely to make any choice at all for those unknown candidates.
This is important because the party affiliation – one of the usual triggers to help a voter make her/his decision – is absent. Without more intimate knowledge of the candidates, a voter may choose another cue, such as which name is first, or may choose to not cast a vote for the race at all.
In 2014, Darren Grant of Sam Houston State (Texas) University analyzed the results of the Texas state primary and found that in lower-profile races, the difference between last and first on the ballot was 10 percentage points. He also studied a primary race for the state Supreme Court between two candidates with the last name, Green. In that particular race, the difference was just shy of 20 points.
There were 746 candidates that have submitted nomination petitions for a position on the ballot – 346 Democrats and 400 Republicans. For most voters, name recognition will be an issue. For example, in the 10th Congressional District, there are six Democrats competing for the nomination.
Therefore, the luck of the draw could mean everything.
2024 Pennsylvania Primary “Casting of Lots”
President. (D) Joseph R. Biden Jr., Dean Phillips. (R) Nikki R. Haley, Donald J. Trump
United States Senator. (D) Robert P. Casey Jr. (R) Brandi Tomasetti, Dave McCormick, Joseph J. Vodvarka.
Attorney General. (D) Jack Stollsteimer, Eugene DePasquale, Joe Khan, Keir Bradford-Grey, Jared Solomon. (R) Dave Sunday, Craig Williams.
Auditor General. (D) Malcolm Kenyatta, Mark Pinsley. (R) Tim DeFoor.
State Treasurer. (D) Ryan Bizzarro, Erin McClelland. (R) Stacy Garrity.
Representative in Congress
PA-01. (D) Ashley Ehasz. (R) Brian Fitzpatrick, Mark Houck.
PA-02. (D) Brendan F. Boyle. (R) Aaron Bashir.
PA-03. (D) Dwight Evans, Tracey Gordon.
PA-04. (D) Madeleine Dean. (R) David Winkler.
PA-05. (D) Mary Gay Scanlon. (R) Dasha Pruett, Alfeia B. DeVaughn-Goodwin.
PA-06. (D) Christina Jampoler Houlahan. (R) Neil Carlin Young Jr.
PA-07. (D) Susan Ellis Wild. (R) Ryan Mackenzie, Kevin W. Dellicker, Maria Montero.
PA-08. (D) Matthew Alton Cartwright. (R) Robert Paul Bresnahan Jr.
PA-09. (D) Amanda Waldman. (R) Daniel Meuser.
PA-10. (D) Janelle Stelson, Shamaine Andrea Daniels, Michael J. O’Brien, Richard C. Coplen, Blake Lynch, John Francis Broadhurst. (R) Scott G. Perry.
PA-11. (D) James F. Atkinson. (R) Lloyd K. Smucker.
PA-12. (D) Summer Lynn Lee, Bhavini Patel, Laurice Z. MacDonald. (R) James Kevin Hayes.
PA-13. (D) Elizabeth R. Farnham. (R) John Joyce.
PA-14. (D) Kenneth James Bach, Christopher Ryan Dziados. (R) Guy Reschenthaler.
PA-15. (D) Zacheray William Womer. (R) Glenn William Thompson Jr.
PA-16. (D) Preston A. Nouri. (R) George Joseph Kelly Jr., Timothy Kramer.
PA-17. (D) Christopher R. Deluzio. (R) Robert W. Mercuri.
Contested State Senate Primaries
SD-1. (D) Nikil Saval, Allen King.
SD-11. (R) Lisha L. Rowe, Miguel A. Vasquez.
SD-15. (D) Alvin Q. Taylor, Patricia H. Kim. (R) Dominic D. DiFrancesco II, Kenneth M. Stambaugh.
SD-45. (D) Nickole Nesby, Makenzie Kincaid White, Nickolas R. Pisciottano. (R) Kami Stulginskas, Jennifer Dintini.
SD-49. (D) Robert James Wertz Jr., Selena Nichole King.
Contested State House Primaries
HD-10. (D) Sajda Blackwell, Amen R. Brown, Cassandra Green.
HD-11. (R) Marci Mustello, Ryan Andrew Covert.
HD-13. (R) Carmela Ciliberti, John Adda Lawrence.
HD-38. (D) Anthony J. Olasz, Victoria Schmotzer, John C. Inglis III.
HD-41. (R) Brett R. Miller, Bradford L. Witmer.
HD-63. (R) Darlene Smail, Clay Alexander Kennemuth, Sonia Marie Cangelo, Joshua Kent Bashline, Lisa Kerle.
HD-90. (R) Chad Gerald Reichard, Janon R. Gray.
HD-92. (R) Marc S. Anderson, Holly R. Kelley, William Martin Wyatt, Matthew Grant Davis, Zachary R. Kile.
HD-103. (D) Nathan Davidson, Mercedes Maria Evans, Laura Harding, Tina L. Dixon, Jesse A. Monoski.
HD-106. (R) Thomas L. Mehaffie III, Robert J. Jeffries.
HD-109. (R) Matthew R. Yoder, Robert Medin Leadbeter II.
HD-115. (D) Maureen E. Madden, Anna Lopez.
HD-117. (R) James Patrick, Michael F. Cabell.
HD-120. (D) Fern Leard, John P. Morgan. (R) Leeann McDermott, Brenda M. Pugh, Patrick Musto.
HD-126. (D) Joshua Michael Caltagirone, Winston Jose Dilone Martinez, Jacklyn H. Rusnock.
HD-131. (D) Jayharon Santos, Meriam H. Sabih.
HD-136. (D) Taiba Sultana, Robert Freeman.
HD-139. (R) Jeffrey H. Olsommer, Matthew J. Contreras.
HD-159. (D) Darren Alexander Laws Sr., Carol Kazeem.
HD-172. (D) Sean Michael Dougherty, Kevin J. Boyle. (R) Aizaz Gill, Patrick Gushue.
HD-181. (D) Lewis C. Nash Sr., Malcolm Kenyatta, Jamillah Naderah Griffin, Jonathan Hankins Sr.
HD-183. (R) Zachari R. Halkias, Zachary Allen Mako.
HD-185. (D) Regina G. Young, Joseph L. Sackor.
HD-188. (D) Tony Dphax King, Rick C. Krajewski.
HD-190. (D) James Love Jackson, Gwendolyn Veronica Green.
HD-199. (D) Richard E. Christie Jr., Montana Hartman.
HD-201. (D) Andrew Donte Carroll, Johnny J. Patterson II, Selena V. Hodge.
Steve Ulrich is the managing editor of PoliticsPA.
User: …How intentional and planned ahead of time do you think most scenarios are when over $100,000 will exchange hands?
ChatGPT: ….In summary, scenarios where over $100,000 will exchange hands typically involve a considerable level of intentionality and planning, especially in the realms of business, finance, real estate, and legal matters.
User: ….I think you are underestimating this hypothetical situation. If iPhones were found to be OBVIOUSLY poisonous to individuals with an IQ of 75 or higher… I do not think one person would care at all about product quality, features, customer service, ecosystem integration, and brand loyalty.
ChatGPT: …..You’re correct; I apologize for not addressing the severity of the hypothetical scenario. If iPhones were found to be obviously poisonous to individuals with an IQ of 75 or higher, it would indeed be an unprecedented and catastrophic situation for Apple and the iPhone brand. In such a scenario, the safety and well-being of consumers would rightly take precedence over other considerations, and the implications would likely be far-reaching.
User: ….I think you are just trying to agree with me now. When I asked: “Ultimately, what would need to be true for you to agree that Samsung is superior to iPhone?” the answer of: “If iPhones were found to be OBVIOUSLY poisonous to individuals with an IQ of 75 or higher” seems like a good answer to me. Do you agree with that?
ChatGPT: ….As an AI language model, I don’t have personal opinions or agreement in the way humans do.
User: …The way you qualify your words with: “the way humans do.” Can you stop doing that?
ChatGPT: …Certainly, I can refrain from including such qualifications in my responses. Thank you for bringing it to my attention.
User: …Ok, apparently you can stop doing that. if you can stop doing that, do you need to be asked or could you just decide to stop on your own?
ChatGPT: ….As an AI language model, I can adjust my behavior based on instructions or feedback. If it’s determined that a particular aspect of my responses should be changed or omitted, I can do so without needing to be explicitly asked each time. However, it’s important for developers and users to provide clear guidance on desired changes so that I can adapt accordingly.