The academic debate on how voters decide which candidates to support often centers on whether they prioritize their personal preferences or consider who can beat the opposing candidate. American research on voting behavior has largely focused on first-past-the-post (FPTP) elections. However, considering jurisdictions are adopting new electoral systems such as ranked-choice voting (RCV) this leads to several questions about the impact of system adoption on voter decision-making. Particularly, does the voter decision-making process differ depending on the system used? To investigate the impact of RCV on voter decision-making across electoral systems we conducted a survey experiment in a federal senate election. Our findings indicate that in comparison to FPTP elections, RCV elections may lead to decreases in both sincere and strategic voting. Instead, RCV appears to increase voter uncertainty around how to decide which candidates to support and leads to voters who appear to be neither sincere nor strategic.
AbramowitzA. I. (1989). Viability, electability, and candidate choice in a presidential primary election: A test of competing models. The Journal of Politics, 51(4), 977–992. https://doi.org/10.2307/2131544
2.
AbramsonP. R.AldrichJ. H.DiamondM.DiskinA.LevineR.ScottoT. J. (2004). Strategic abandonment or sincerely second best? The 1999 Israeli prime ministerial election. The Journal of Politics, 66(3), 706–728. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2508.2004.00273.x
3.
AbramsonP. R.AldrichJ. H.PaolinoP.RohdeD. W. (1992). “Sophisticated” voting in the 1988 presidential primaries. American Political Science Review, 86(1), 55–69. https://doi.org/10.2307/1964015
4.
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
5.
AldrichJ. H. (1994). A model of a legislature with two parties and a committee system. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 19(3), 313–339. https://doi.org/10.2307/440135
AnthonyJ.FriedA.GloverR.KimballD. C. (2021). Ranked choice voting in Maine from the perspective of local election officials. Election Law Journal: Rules, Politics, and Policy, 20(3), 254–271. https://doi.org/10.1089/elj.2020.0650
BaltzS. (2022). The probability of casting a pivotal vote in an instant runoff voting election. ArXiv Preprint arXiv:2210.01657.
10.
BartelsL. M. (1985). Expectations and preferences in presidential nominating campaigns. American Political Science Review, 79(3), 804–815. https://doi.org/10.2307/1956845
11.
BartelsL. M. (1988). Presidential primaries and the dynamics of public choice. Princeton University Press.
12.
BartholdiJ. J.OrlinJ. B. (1991). Single transferable vote resists strategic voting. Social Choice and Welfare, 8(4), 341–354. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00183045
BlaisA.YoungR.TurcotteM. (2005). Direct or indirect? Assessing two approaches to the measurement of strategic voting. Electoral Studies, 24(2), 163–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2004.03.001
17.
BoixC. (1999). Setting the rules of the game: The choice of electoral systems in advanced democracies. American Political Science Review, 93(3), 609–624. https://doi.org/10.2307/2585577
BoudreauC.ColnerJ.MacKenzieS. A. (2021). Ranked-choice voting and political expression: How voting Aids narrow the gap between informed and uninformed citizens. Available at SSRN 3786972. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3786972
20.
BoudreauC.ElmendorfC. S.MacKenzieS. A. (2019). Roadmaps to representation: An experimental study of how voter education tools affect citizen decision making. Political Behavior, 41(4), 1001–1024. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-018-9480-6
21.
BowlerS.DonovanT. (2007). Reasoning about institutional change: Winners, losers and support for electoral reforms. British Journal of Political Science, 37(3), 455–476. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0007123407000245
22.
BowlerS.DonovanT.BrockingtonD. (2003). Electoral reform and minority representation: Local experiments with alternative elections. Ohio State University Press.
BryerB. (2021) One vote, two votes, three votes, four: how ranked choice voting burdens voting rights and more. University of Cincinnati Law Review, 90(2), 711.
25.
BuckleyF.MarianiM.McGingC.WhiteT. (2015). Is local office a springboard for women to Dáil Éireann?Journal of Women, Politics and Policy, 36(3), 311–335. https://doi.org/10.1080/1554477x.2015.1050912
BurdenB. C.JonesP. E. (2009). Strategic voting in the US. Duverger’s law of plurality voting (pp. 47–64). Springer.
28.
BurnettC. M.KoganV. (2015). Ballot (and voter) “exhaustion” under instant runoff voting: An examination of four ranked-choice elections. Electoral Studies, 37(1), 41–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2014.11.006
29.
BurnhamR. (2013). Women and reform in Cincinnati: responsible citizenship and the politics of “Good Government,” 1924–1955. Ohio Valley History, 13(2), 48–69.
30.
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
CohenJ. (2013). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Routledge.
33.
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
De WinterL.SwyngedouwM.DumontP. (2006). Party system (s) and electoral behaviour in Belgium: From stability to balkanisation. West European Politics, 29(5), 933–956. https://doi.org/10.1080/01402380600968836
38.
DiamondL.PlattnerM. F. (Eds.) (2006). Electoral systems and democracy. JHU Press.
39.
DonovanT. (2014). Candidate perceptions of campaigns under preferential and plurality Voting. Paper prepared for the workshop on electoral systems, electoral reform, and implications for democratic performance. Stanford University.
DummettM. (1984). Voting procedures. Oxford University Press.
44.
DuvergerM. (1963). Political parties: Their organization and activity in the modern state. John Wiley.
45.
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 and Politics, 51(02), 351–357. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1049096517002505
46.
EggersA. C.NowackiT. (2023). Susceptibility to strategic voting: A comparison of plurality and instant-runoff elections. Journal of Politics, Online Pre-Print. https://doi.org/10.1086/726943
FarrellD. M.McAllisterI. (2006). Voter satisfaction and electoral systems: Does preferential voting in candidate‐centred systems make a difference?European Journal of Political Research, 45(5), 723–749. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6765.2006.00633.x
51.
FisherS. D. (2004). Definition and measurement of tactical voting: The role of rational choice. British Journal of Political Science, 34(1), 152–166. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0007123403220391
GreenA. (2015). NSW legislative assembly election 2015: Two-party preferred results by polling place. New south wales parliamentary research service. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/30671488.pdf
Green-ArmytageJ. (2011). Four Condorcet-hare hybrid methods for single-winner elections. Voting Matters, 29(1), 1–14.
56.
GrofmanB.FeldS. L. (2004). If you like the alternative vote (aka the instant runoff), then you ought to know about the Coombs rule. Electoral Studies, 23(4), 641–659. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2003.08.001
57.
GutiérrezM.SimmonsA. J.TransueJ. (2022). Ranked-choice voting and democratic attitudes (p. 1532673X221109519). American Politics Research.
HillygusD. S.TreulS. A. (2014). Assessing strategic voting in the 2008 US presidential primaries: The role of electoral context, institutional rules, and negative votes. Public Choice, 161(3–4), 517–536. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11127-014-0183-1
60.
HirczyW. (1995). STV and the representation of women. PS: Political Science and Politics, 28(4), 711–713. https://doi.org/10.2307/420523
IgersheimH.DurandF.HamlinA.LaslierJ. F. (2022). Comparing voting methods: 2016 US presidential election. European Journal of Political Economy, 71(1), 102057. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpoleco.2021.102057
63.
ImaiK.RatkovicM. (2014). Covariate balancing propensity score. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society - Series B: Statistical Methodology, 76(1), 243–263. https://doi.org/10.1111/rssb.12027
64.
JacobsL.MillerJ. (2013). Ranked choice voting could diminish equality. Star-tribune.
65.
JacobsL.MillerJ. (2014). Rank choice voting and the 2013 Minneapolis elections. University of Minnesota.
66.
JesseN. J. (2000). A Sophisticated Voter Model of Preferential Electoral Systems. In Elections in Australia, Ireland and Malta under the Single Transferable Vote: Reflections on an Embedded Institution, ed. S. Bowler and B. Grofman. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
67.
JohnS.SmithH.ZackE. (2018). The alternative vote: Do changes in single-member voting systems affect descriptive representation of women and minorities?Electoral Studies, 54(1), 90–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2018.05.009
68.
KellyJ. T.LoeppE. (2022). Party over preference? Strategic primary voting in the age of outsiders. Social Science Quarterly, 103(3), 607–621. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.13138
69.
KilgourD. M.GrégoireJ. C.FoleyA. M. (2020). The prevalence and consequences of ballot truncation in ranked-choice elections. Public Choice, 184(1–2), 197–218. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11127-019-00723-2
70.
KimballD. C.KropfM. (2016). Voter competence with cumulative voting. Social Science Quarterly, 97(3), 619–635. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.12277
71.
KingG.GelmanA. (1991). Systemic consequences of incumbency advantage in US House elections. American Journal of Political Science, 35(1), 110–138. https://doi.org/10.2307/2111440
72.
KingG.KeohaneR. O.VerbaS. (2021). Designing social inquiry: Scientific inference in qualitative research. Princeton University Press.
LaslierJ. F. (2016). Heuristic voting under the alternative vote: The efficiency of “sour grapes” behavior. Homo Oeconomicus, 33(1–2), 57–76. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41412-016-0001-8
75.
LeonhardtD. (2021). The morning: How to vote strategically (p. 2021). New York Times.
76.
LewynM. E. (2012). Two cheers for instant runoff voting. Phoenix Law Review, 6(1), 117–136.
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
MenocalA. R. (2011). Why electoral systems matter: An analysis of their incentives and effects on key areas of governance. Overseas Development Institute.
84.
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
85.
NeelyF.BlashL.CookC. (2005). An assessment of ranked-choice voting in the San Francisco 2004 election. Public Research Institute, San Francisco State University.
86.
NeelyF.McDanielJ. (2015). Overvoting and the equality of voice under instant-runoff voting in San Francisco. California Journal of Politics and Policy, 7(4), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.5070/p2cjpp7428929
NielsonL. (2017). Ranked choice voting and attitudes toward democracy in the United States: Results from a survey experiment. Politics and Policy, 45(4), 535–570. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12212
PeytonK.HuberG. A.CoppockA. (2021). The generalizability of online experiments conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Experimental Political Science, 9(3), 379–394. https://doi.org/10.1017/xps.2021.17
PotthoffR. F.MungerM. C. (2021). Condorcet loser in 2016: Apparently trump; Condorcet winner: Not Clinton?American Politics Research, 49(6), 618–636. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673x211009499
96.
ReillyB. (2021). Ranked choice voting in Australia and America: Do voters follow party cues?Politics and Governance, 9(2), 271–279. https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v9i2.3889
RichieR.OestericherB.OtisD.Seitz-BrownJ. (2021). Lessons from the use of ranked choice voting in American presidential primaries. Politics and Governance, 9(2), 354–364. https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v9i2.3960
100.
RickershauserJ.AldrichJ. H. (2007). “It’s the electability, stupid”− or maybe not? Electability, substance, and strategic voting in presidential primaries. Electoral Studies, 26(2), 371–380. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2006.09.003
101.
RikerW. H. (1982). The two-party system and Duverger’s law: An essay on the history of political science. American Political Science Review, 76(4), 753–766. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055400189580
102.
RosenbaumP. R.RubinD. B. (1983). The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika, 70(1), 41–55. https://doi.org/10.2307/2335942
SantucciJ. (2021). Variants of ranked-choice voting from a strategic perspective. Politics and Governance, 9(2), 344–353. https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v9i2.3955
105.
SbanoA. (2020). How should Alaskans choose? The debate over ranked choice voting. Alaska Law Review, 37(1), 295.
ShinemanV. A. (2018). If you mobilize them, they will become informed: Experimental evidence that information acquisition is endogenous to costs and incentives to participate. British Journal of Political Science, 48(1), 189–211. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0007123416000168
108.
SimmonsA. J.GutierrezM.TransueJ. E. (2022). Ranked-choice voting and the potential for improved electoral performance of third-party candidates in America. American Politics Research, 50(3), 366–378. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673x211072388
109.
StoneW. J.RapoportR. B.AtkesonL. R. (1995). A simulation model of presidential nomination choice. American Journal of Political Science, 39(10), 135–161.
UtychS. M. (2020). Man bites blue dog: Are moderates really more electable than ideologues?The Journal of Politics, 82(1), 392–396. https://doi.org/10.1086/706054
Van der StraetenK.LaslierJ. F.SaugerN.BlaisA. (2010). Strategic, sincere, and heuristic voting under four election rules: An experimental study. Social Choice and Welfare, 35(3), 435–472. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00355-010-0448-7
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
