NAMES & ELECTORAL SUCCESS

MOON SUN FINANCE

David McMinn

Voters in English speaking democracies prefer certain name structures over others in selecting the leaders of their respective countries. This may seem strange, but it is supported strongly by the evidence. Voters have preferences for candidates with double lettering in their names (USA only) and initials in close alphabetical proximity. Additionally, leaders are more likely to have the first letter of their surname in the first half of the alphabet. Understanding such biases can indicate the likely outcomes of the electoral process. 

Initial Interval Effect.  

USA. Since the election of President Garfield in 1880, US presidents have a strong propensity to have the first letters of their surname and first name in close alphabetical proximity (see Appendix 1). The most obvious examples being Theodore Roosevelt, Calvin Coolidge, Herbert Hoover, Dwight Eisenhower, Gerald Ford, Ronald Regan, Bill Clinton and so forth. In fact most presidents had an alphabetical interval of 6 letters or less in their initials. The four exceptions were all elected pre 1950 - William McKinley (9), Warren Harding (14), Franklin Roosevelt (11) and Harry Truman (11). Since 1880, no US president has been elected with an initial interval of 15 or more.

Prior to 1880, this name effect did not hold with most presidents having an alphabetical separation between their first/surname initials of 5 or more letters (only two exceptions - James Madison and James Monroe). Some of the USA's greatest presidents, such as George Washington (15) and Abraham Lincoln (10), possibly would not be successful, if they stood for office in modern times. If American parents want to enhance their son's prospect of becoming president, it would be far better to name him something like Ronald Reagan than Bruce Reagan (15) or Bill Clinton instead of Wayne Clinton (19). A candidate could also adopt a more suitable name. William Clinton had an initial interval of 19, but his use of the name 'Bill' reduced this to 0 thereby making him more electorally appealing. Similarly, Hillary Clinton (4) would be better off using this name rather than Hillary Rodham Clinton (9).

Australia. The propensity to have initials in close alphabetical proximity also applies to Australian prime ministers since federation in 1901. After 1940, there have been 14 prime ministers, of which only two had an initial interval of 7 or more letters in the alphabet (see Appendix 2). They  were William McMahan (9) and Gough Whitlam (15), both held the position for only a few years. Robert Menzies was debatable, as his name had an initial interval of 4 letters. However, he was also commonly known as Bob Menzies, which gave an initial interval of 10. 

Before 1940, the effect did not show up, as there were 11 prime ministers and only 5 had an initial interval of 6 letters or less. Only one prime minister has ever had an initial interval of 16 or more. He was Chris Watson (19) who held the position briefly for less than four months in 1904

Canada. Canadian prime ministers were also more likely to have a small initial interval between their first and surnames. The effect was more pronounced after mid 1920 for whatever reason. Remarkably there has never been a Canadian Prime Minister with an initial interval of 17 or more letters and since mid 1920 none with an initial interval of 12 or more.

New Zealand. This propensity for small initial intervals also applied to New Zealand premiers and prime ministers especially after 1912.

United Kingdom. British prime ministers also tended to have initials in close alphabetical proximity since 1902, but the emphasis was less pronounced than for other English speaking democracies. The notable exceptions were Stanley Baldwin (initial interval 16), Winston Churchill (19) and Tony Blair (17), all of whom were popular long serving leaders.

Unfortunately no data was available on initial intervals for the general population in any of these countries, so a valid comparison could not be made. To some extent these findings for elected leaders may be an artifact of people having a preference to give their children names with initials in close alphabetical proximity. This cannot be examined.

Alphabetism

People with the first letter of their surname near the beginning of the alphabet will always appear near the top of any alphabetical listing. This gives them a big advantage over people with surname initials in the latter half of the alphabet. There are many subtle forms of discrimination due to alphabetism, with The Economist (Editorial, Sept 1, 2001) giving several examples. A teacher may arrange the classroom alphabetically to allow them to better remember student names. Students with the first letter of their surname at the beginning of the alphabet will appear at the front of the class, which would allow better teacher - student interaction and resultant better academic outcomes. At university graduation ceremonies, the A, B & Cs get their awards first, but by the time people with family names beginning X, Y or Z get their awards, the audience is bored and looking at the exists. Problems also arise in job interviews arranged alphabetically - the first candidates will always make a better impression than the last ones, as the interviewers find the process increasingly tiresome. At academic and business conferences, speakers and attendees will tend to be listed alphabetically so that the greatest attention will be given to those near the top of the listings. Joint academic papers may have their authors listed alphabetically so that people with A, B, C beginning surnames will gain the greatest credit. The bias also arises in voting when candidates are listed alphabetically on the ballot. The candidates at the beginning will tend to receive more votes than the ones at the end due to the 'donkey vote'. Thus, the discrimination against the alphabetically challenged persists throughout life, with severe ramifications for the sufferers' self esteem, feelings of self worth and potential for success in life. 

Australia. Since federation in 1900, there have been 24 Australian prime ministers, of which 19 had surname initials in the first half of the alphabet. Amazingly since 1940, there have been 13 prime ministers with surname initials in the first half of the alphabet and only one in the latter half  - Gough Whitlam. Of the 30 cabinet members in the Howard Federal Government in mid 2006, 11 had a surname initial of A, B or C, compared with 7 in the latter half of the alphabet. 

USA. Of the 42 US presidents to 2006, 31 had the surname initial in the first half of the alphabet and 9 commencing with an A, B or C. The effect also showed up for failed presidential hopefuls. Of the 38 presidential candidates, who never won a presidential election and who won at least 20 electoral votes, 27 had a surname initial in the first half of the alphabet with an amazing 11 candidates having B & C initials. 

UK. Of the 20 British Prime Ministers between 1900 and 2007, 8 had surnames beginning with the first three letters of the alphabet and only two with surnames beginning with the last 13 letters of the alphabet. There were 23 members of the British cabinet in mid 2006, of which 9 had a surname initial of A or B.

Canada. There were 23 Canadian prime ministers between 1867 and 2007, of which 17 had a surname initial between A & M and 7 had the initials A, B & C. 

New Zealand. The impact of aphabetism did not show up strongly in New Zealand politics. This country has had 23 prime ministers since 1900, with 16 having the their surname initial in the first half of the alphabet and there was no notable emphasis on the first few letters of the alphabet.

Double Lettering Effect. 

Since 1890, a US presidential candidate was much more likely to be successful if he had a name with double letters - the many examples have been highlighted in Appendix 1. This effect has been appreciated since the 1960's and probably earlier. Famous presidents with double letters were Roosevelt, Hoover, Coolidge, Kennedy, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton  and so forth (James Donahue). Only four Republican or Democratic presidential candidates had double lettering in their name and failed to win at least one stint in the White House (see Appendix 3). These were William Bryan, Wendell Willkie, Barry Goldwater and John Kerry. As for Wendell Willkie, would you be predisposed to vote for a man with such a name? Besides, he was pitted against Franklin Roosevelt in 1940, who was also blessed with double lettering. Similarly, William Bryan stood against candidates with double lettering in each of the three elections he participated in - 1896 (William McKinley), 1900 (William McKinley) and 1908 (William Taft). Barry Goldwater was unsuccessful in the 1964 elections, even though he could have been expected to win against Lyndon Johnson given his strong name advantage. However, Goldwater had limited electoral appeal as he was from the far right and this was the liberal 1960’s. John Kerry was the only other candidate who failed to win a presidential election (2004), despite having double lettering in his name and initials in close alphabetical proximity. This was the reverse situation applying to Barry Goldwater. The 2000's was the era of the right wing christian conservative and Kerry was a liberal from the northern states. Even so, Bush's win was not decisive (Bush 51% & Kerry 48%) and there could have been serious vote cheating that benefited the conservative side (Robert Kennedy Jnr). Kerry may have actually won the election as expected from the double lettering effect, but lost through Republican vote rigging. In any third world country there would have been outrage at such blatant manipulation of the system, but it was very acceptable in George Bush's America. 

George Wallace (1964 election) and Ross Perot (1992 & 1996 elections) had a crucial double letter name advantage, but could never have been expected to win as they were the 'third' candidate.

Middle Name Emphasis
. 
An Australian entertainment mogul, Harry M Millar, was asked why he inserted an M in his name and he responded "Who would remember Harry Millar?" The insertion of a middle name or initial emphasises the whole name. Thus, assassins of American presidents are always denoted with a middle name or initial. Lee Oswald sounds rather innocuous, where as Lee Harvey Oswald gives a completely different emphasis. Similarly with John Booth rather than John Wilkes Booth. Both Charles Guiteau and Leon Czolgosz had foreign names, which most Americans would find unfamiliar and have problems correctly pronouncing. Thus these men usually have only an initial inserted rather than a middle name.

Conclusions 

US voters seem to prefer candidates with double letters and initial letters in close alphabetical proximity. Such letterings may promote feelings of trust, authority, familiarity or whatever. Why these name effects in electing US presidents only emerged after 1880's may possibly be due to:

*     the growth of the mass media, which increasingly invaded voters lives. 

*    improved literacy levels amongst the population.

Strangely, the double lettering effect does not apply to Anglo speaking countries with Westminster systems of government - UK, Canada, New Zealand and Australia. Few prime ministers in these countries have had double letters in their names.

People are much more likely to make successful politicians, if they have family names in the first half of the alphabet and especially in the first few letters A, B & C. This applied to most countries considered, apart from perhaps New Zealand.

The name effects for presidents and prime ministers could easily arise from data mining, especially given the small sample sizes involved. Even so, it is reasonable to hypothesise that the presidential candidate's name does influence the outcome of an election. Some names just sound better than others, thus making the candidate more appealing thus giving a crucial winning edge. Name effects are most obvious in the success of Hollywood movie stars in the mid 20th century. Would Cary Grant have become so successful if he had remained Archibald Leach? Cary Grant gives the impression of glamour, something an Archie Leach could never achieve. Other examples are given as follows.

Practical Applications

Voters prefer candidates with double letters and initial letters in close alphabetical proximity. Such letterings may promote feelings of trust, authority, familiarity or whatever. If parents want to enhance their child's prospect of becoming president or prime minister, it would be far better to name him something like Ronald Reagan than Bruce Reagan or Bill Clinton instead of Wayne Clinton.

USA. Name structures can be a good indicator of electoral success. During the 2004 democratic primaries, the author went down the list of hopefuls and picked John Kerry as the candidate most likely to win based solely on his name - double lettering and initials in close alphabetic proximity. At the time, the favoured candidate was Howard Dean, whose popularity subsequently waned. As to be expected, Kerry was the eventual winner, but his name advantage did not carry him through to win the November 2004 presidential election. In the current election process, Hillary Clinton (initial separation of 4 plus double lettering) is more likely to win the Democratic nomination over Barack Obama (12) the second most popular candidate.

Australia. Simon Crean, the former leader of the Australian Labor Party (ALP) and federal opposition leader, did not stand much chance winning popular support from the Australian public. His initials had a large alphabetical interval (15 letters) and his name sounded rather painful. His approval rating eventually slumped to 15% and he was dumped. Mark Latham, the next opposition leader, had a favourable initial interval of one, but his hubris and inexperience resulted in him being soundly defeated in the 2004 elections. In the January 2005 spill for the ALP leadership, the choice was between Julia Gillard (2), Kevin Rudd (6) and Kim Beazley (8). The ALP, in its infinite wisdom, chose the candidate, Kim Beazley, with the least likelihood of being elected based on their name. This was a major problem, when confronting the prevailing prime minister, John Howard, who had an initial interval of only one and was been a long term electoral success. Kim Beazley failed to win substantial electoral support and was replaced by Kevin Rudd (6) as the opposition leader. Rudd was successful in defeating the second longest serving Australian prime minister John Howard (1).