Story perspectives

Alphabetic Ballot Order Gives Early Candidates 65% Edge.

5/13/2026

Summary

Story summary

Analysts claim alphabetic ballot ordering creates an unfair advantage and demand randomised or party-grouped listings.
Guardian analysis shows earlier surnames win more votes, with the first-listed candidate leading in 2,200 three-candidate wards, 65% of contests.
Reform party had the strongest effect, with 74% advantaged candidates leading and under 8% bottom-listed doing so.
Reform’s Juliet Zhong and Green’s Nick Abear reported lower votes than colleagues with earlier surnames, urging ballot randomisation.

1 of 1

Story summary

Analysts claim alphabetic ballot ordering creates an unfair advantage and demand randomised or party-grouped listings.
Guardian analysis shows earlier surnames win more votes, with the first-listed candidate leading in 2,200 three-candidate wards, 65% of contests.
Reform party had the strongest effect, with 74% advantaged candidates leading and under 8% bottom-listed doing so.
Reform’s Juliet Zhong and Green’s Nick Abear reported lower votes than colleagues with earlier surnames, urging ballot randomisation.