Proponents of ranked-choice voting highlight a number of arguments for why such an approach to elections should be adopted. One major argument is that ranked-choice voting will encourage voters to support more third-party or independent candidates and break the electoral stranglehold of the two main parties in America. Considering approximately two-thirds of Americans want a third major party this argument may prove appealing to American voters, but there is currently no empirical evidence to support such claims. In this project, we explore a theory of why ranked-choice voting may increase voter support for third-party or independent candidates and test the argument that ranked-choice voting (RCV) will improve the fortunes of third-party candidates using a survey experiment. We find significant support for the claim that ranked-choice voting increases support for third-party candidates.
AbramsonP. R.AldrichJ. H.PaolinoP., & RohdeD. W. (1992). Sophisticated voting in the 1988 presidential primaries (86, pp. 55-69). The American Political Science Review. https://doi.org/10.2307/1964015.
2.
AbramsonP. R.AldrichJ. H.PaolinoP.RohdeD. W. (1995). Third-party and Independent candidates in American politics: Wallace, Anderson, and Perot. Political Science Quarterly, 110(3), 349–367. https://doi.org/10.2307/2152568.
3.
AbramsonP. R.AldrichJ. H.PaolinoP.RohdeD. W. (2000). Challenges to the American two-party system: Evidence from the 1968, 1980, 1992, and 1996 presidential elections. Political Research Quarterly, 53(3), 495–522. https://doi.org/10.1177/106591290005300303.
AlvarezR. M., & NaglerJ. (1995). Economics, issues and the Perot candidacy: Voter choice in the 1992 presidential election. American Journal of Political Science, 39(3), 714-744. https://doi.org/10.2307/2111651.
6.
BartelsL. M. (1988). Presidential primaries and the dynamics of public choice. Princeton University Press.
7.
BerensonT. (2016). Third parties faded to the background in a shocking election. Time Magazine.
8.
BerinskyA. J. (2018). Telling the truth about believing the lies? Evidence for the limited prevalence of expressive survey responding. The Journal of Politics, 80(1), 211–224. https://doi.org/10.1086/694258.
9.
BibbyJ. F.MaiselL. S. (2003). Two parties-or more? The American party system. Westview Press.
10.
BowlerS.DonovanT.BrockingtonD. (2003). Electoral reform and minority representation: Local experiments with alternative elections. Ohio State University Press.
11.
BramsS. J., & MerrillS. (1994). Would ross Perot have won the 1992 presidential election under approval voting?PS: Political Science and Politics, 27(1), 39-44. https://doi.org/10.2307/420456.
12.
BuckleyF.MarianiM.McGingC.WhiteT. (2015). Is local office a springboard for women to dáil éireann?Journal of Women, Politics & Policy, 36(3), 311–335. https://doi.org/10.1080/1554477x.2015.1050912.
BurdenB.C. (2007). Ballot regulations and multiparty politics in the states. PS: Political Science and Politics, 40(4), 669–673. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1049096507071065.
15.
BurnhamR. A. (1997). Reform, politics, and race in cincinnati: proportional representation and the city charter committee, 1924-1959. Journal of Urban History, 23(2), 131–163. https://doi.org/10.1177/009614429702300201.
16.
BurnhamR. (2013). Women and reform in cincinnati: Responsible citizenship and the politics of. Good GovernmentOhio Valley History, 13(2), 48–69.
CollJ. A. (2021). Demographic disparities using ranked-choice voting? Ranking difficulty, under-voting, and the 2020 democratic primary. Politics and Governance, 9(2), 293–305. https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v9i2.3913.
19.
ColletC. (1996). Trends: Third parties and the two-party system. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 60(3), 431–449. https://doi.org/10.1086/297763.
DonovanT. (2014). Candidate perceptions of campaigns under preferential and plurality VotingPaper prepared for the workshop on electoral systems, electoral reform, and implications for democratic performance. Stanford University.
DonovanT.TolbertC.GraceyK. (2019). Self‐reported understanding of ranked‐choice voting. Social Science Quarterly, 100(5), 1768–1776. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.12651.
27.
DowlingC. M.LemS. B. (2009). Explaining major and third party candidate entry in US gubernatorial elections, 1980–2005. State Politics & Policy Quarterly, 9(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/153244000900900101.
28.
DrometerM.RinckeJ. (2009). The impact of ballot access restrictions on electoral competition: Evidence from a natural experiment. Public Choice, 138(3–4), 461–474. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11127-008-9370-2.
DrutmanL.GalstonW.A.LindbergT. (2018). Spoiler alert: Why Americans’ desires for a third party are unlikely to come true. Democracy Fund Voter Study Group.
DuvergerM. (1963). Political parties: Their organization and activity in the modern state. John Wiley.
33.
DyckJ. J.Pearson-MerkowitzS., & CoatesM. (2018). Primary distrust: Political distrust and support for the insurgent candidacies of Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders in the 2016 primary. PS: Political Science & Politics, 51(2), 351-357. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1049096517002505.
GoldH. J. (1995). Third party voting in presidential elections: A study of Perot, Anderson, and Wallace. Political Research Quarterly, 48(4), 751-773. https://doi.org/10.1177/106591299504800405.
38.
GoldH. J. (2005). Explaining third-party success in gubernatorial elections: The cases of Alaska, Connecticut, Maine and Minnesota. The Social Science Journal, 42(4), 523–540. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soscij.2005.09.010.
39.
HetheringtonM. J. (1999). The effect of political trust on the presidential vote, 1968–96. American Political Science Review, 93(2), 311–326. https://doi.org/10.2307/2585398.
40.
HirczyW. (1995). STV and the representation of women. PS: Political Science and Politics, 28(4), 711–713. https://doi.org/10.2307/420523.
41.
JacobsL.MillerJ. (2013). Ranked choice voting could diminish equality. Minneapolis Star-Tribune.
42.
JacobsL., & MillerJ. (2014). Rank choice voting and the 2013 Minneapolis elections. University of Minnesota.
43.
JohnS.SmithH., & ZackE. (2018). The alternative vote: Do changes in single-member voting systems affect descriptive representation of women and minorities?Electoral Studies, 54, 90-102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2018.05.009.
44.
KochJ. (1998). The Perot candidacy and attitudes toward government and politics. Political Research Quarterly, 51(1), 141-153. https://doi.org/10.1177/106591299805100106.
45.
KochJ. W. (2003). Political cynicism and third party support in American presidential elections. American Politics Research, 31(1), 48–65. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673x02238579.
46.
LacyD.MonsonQ. (2002). The origins and impact of votes for third-party candidates: A case study of the 1998 Minnesota gubernatorial election. Political Research Quarterly, 55(2), 409–437. https://doi.org/10.1177/106591290205500207.
47.
LangK.LangG. E. (1984). The impact of polls on public opinion. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 472(1), 129–142. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716284472001012.
48.
LeeD. J. (2012). Take the good with the bad: Cross-cutting effects of ballot access requirements on third-party electoral success. American Politics Research, 40(2), 267–292. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673x11414118.
49.
LemS. B.DowlingC. M. (2006). Picking their spots: Minor party candidates in gubernatorial elections. Political Research Quarterly, 59(3), 471–480. https://doi.org/10.1177/106591290605900314.
Lewis-BeckM. S.SquireP. (1995). The politics of institutional choice: Presidential ballot access for third parties in the United States. British Journal of Political Science, 25(3), 419–427. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0007123400007274.
52.
MageeC. S. (2003). Third‐party candidates and the 2000 presidential election. Social Science Quarterly, 84(3), 574–595. https://doi.org/0.1111/1540-6237.8403006.
53.
MauterE. L. (2014). Ranked Choice Voting in Minneapolis 2013 elections. Saint Paul: St. Catherine University.
54.
McCannJ. A.RapoportR. B., & StoneW. J. (1999). Heeding the call: An assessment of mobilization into H. Ross Perot’s 1992 presidential campaign. American Journal of Political Science, 43(1), 1-28. https://doi.org/10.2307/2991783.
55.
McDanielJ. A. (2016). Writing the rules to rank the candidates: Examining the impact of instant-runoff voting on racial group turnout in San Francisco mayoral elections. Journal of Urban Affairs, 38(3), 387–408. https://doi.org/10.1111/juaf.12209.
MerollaJ. L. (2009). The effect of information signals on strategic voting in mock mayoral elections. Political Behavior, 31(3), 379–399. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-008-9080-y.
60.
MontgomeryJ. M.NyhanB.TorresM. (2018). How conditioning on posttreatment variables can ruin your experiment and what to do about it. American Journal of Political Science, 62(3), 760–775. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12357.
61.
NeelyF.BlashL.CookC. (2005). An assessment of ranked-choice voting in the San Francisco 2004 election. Public Research Institute, San Francisco State University.
New York Times. (2021). Don’t overthink ranked-choice voting, New York City. Opinion | Don’t Overthink Ranked-Choice Voting Times (nytimes.com).
65.
NielsonL. (2017). Ranked choice voting and attitudes toward democracy in the United States: Results from a survey experiment. Politics & Policy, 45(4), 535–570. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12212.
PerssonM.SolevidM. (2014). Measuring political participation—Testing social desirability bias in a web-survey experiment. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 26(1), 98–112. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edt002
68.
PetersonG.WrightonJ. M. (1998). Expressions of distrust: Third-party voting and cynicism in government. Political Behavior, 20(1), 17–34. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1024891016072.
69.
PeytonK.HuberG. AAlexanderC. (2020). The generalizability of online experiments conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic. Cambridge University Press. osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/s45yg
70.
PirchK.A. (2007). Incumbent failure and partisan strength: an explanation of the emergence and support of major third party presidential candidates in the United States. American Review of Politics, 28, 97-117. https://doi.org/10.15763/issn.2374-7781.2007.28.0.97-117.
SchraufnagelS.MilitaK. (2010). The partisan duopoly in us house elections: An analysis of minor party failure. Representation, 46(2), 241–253. https://doi.org/10.1080/00344893.2010.485855.
76.
ScipioniJ. (2020). Libertarian candidate on presidential race: We don’t ‘take’ votes from other political parties. CNBC.
77.
Seitz-WaldA. (2016). Dem group launches effort warning about third-party vote. Nbcnews. https://www.nbcnews.com.
78.
StoneW.J., & RapoportR.B. (2001). It’s Perot stupid! The legacy of the 1992 Perot movement in the major-party system, 1994-2000. PS: Political Science and Politics, 34(1), 49-58. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1049096501000087.
TabarrokA. (2001). President Perot or fundamentals of voting theory illustrated with the 1992 election. Public Choice, 106(3–4), 275-297. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1005205411820.
81.
TamasB.HindmanM. D. (2014). Ballot access laws and the decline of American third-parties. Election Law Journal, 13(2), 260–276. https://doi.org/10.1089/elj.2013.0217.
WingerR. (1997). Institutional obstacles to a multiparty system. In HerrnsonPaul S.GreenJohn C. (Eds.), Multiparty politics in America. Rowman and Littlefield.
ZvobgoK. (2019). Human rights versus national interests: Shifting US public attitudes on the international criminal court. International Studies Quarterly, 63(4), 1065–1078. https://doi.org/10.1093/isq/sqz056
