Alphabetical Order Influences Candidate Success in England’s Local Elections

Local council ballots in England list party candidates alphabetically by surname. An analysis of the May 2026 elections, notably across multiple councils, found a strong “alphabet effect” that influences voter choice. In 864 wards with three-candidate party lists, the candidate nearest the top of the ballot out-performed party colleagues in 2,200 instances (65 %). The third-listed candidate topped only 382 times (11 %). Reform UK showed the clearest pattern: about 74 % of alphabetically advantaged Reform candidates led their party’s vote, compared with fewer than 8 % of those at the bottom. The Green Party ranked second, Labour third. Early-letter surnames slightly exceeded the party’s average vote share, while surnames beginning W, Y or Z underperformed.

The Guardian

Reform UK candidate Juliet Zhong reported that in her ward Noble received 120 votes, Walker 115, and Zhong 102, attributing the gap to ballot position. Green Party candidate Nick Abear said he had not considered surname effects, believing most voters decide by party. Liberal Democrat Andy Adams, a Winchester council winner, expressed support for randomising ballot papers in principle. Party officials have not issued formal statements; candidates highlighted personal observations of the disparity.

The Guardian

Critics argue alphabetical ordering creates a potentially uneven playing field, especially in multi-member wards. Reforms proposed include grouping candidates by party rather than surname or randomising ballot order to neutralise name-based advantage.

The Guardian

• “In the Queen’s Gate ward, where I stood alongside my two fellow Reform UK candidates, Ms Noble and Mr Walker, all our leaflets displayed our three names together. However, the election results showed: Noble 120, Walker 115, and then Zhong (me) 102. That is about 15% to 18% less. It makes no sense at all, as all our campaign materials featured all three of our names.” — Juliet Zhong, Reform UK candidate

The Guardian

• “I hadn’t really considered it because I think most people know who (or which party) they are going to vote for in advance of voting. The thought of someone turning up to vote and thinking: ‘I’ll just stick my X on the top line’ seems unlikely.” — Nick Abear, Green Party candidate

The Guardian

• “In a very close election and at local level the numbers can be very close at times … a very long list would reasonably be expected to give rise to the effect. I would probably support randomising ballot papers in principle even if I would not stand to gain from such an innovation.” — Andy Adams, Liberal Democrat candidate

The Guardian

• “This shows a similar pattern: candidates with surnames near the beginning of the alphabet slightly outperformed the party average vote share, and those with surnames beginning W, Y and Z underperformed in their party.” — The Guardian analysis

The Guardian

The analysis relies on candidate-reported observations; no official comment at present is provided, leaving a notable gap in assessment.

The Guardian

Candidates have called for randomising ballot papers for future elections in upcoming cycles, but no formal proposals have been tabled.

The Guardian