Sincere,Strategic,or Something Else? The Impact of Ranked-Choice Voting on Voter Decision Making Processes

Abstract

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.

Keywords

ranked-choice voting survey experiment sincere voting strategic voting

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Abramowitz

A. 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

Abramson

P. R.

Aldrich

J. H.

Diamond

Diskin

Levine

Scotto

T. 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

Abramson

P. R.

Aldrich

J. H.

Paolino

Rohde

D. W.

(1992). “Sophisticated” voting in the 1988 presidential primaries. American Political Science Review, 86(1), 55–69. https://doi.org/10.2307/1964015

Abramson

P. R.

Aldrich

J. H.

Paolino

Rohde

D. 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

Aldrich

J. 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

Alvarez-Rivera

(2018). The 2018 ranked choice voting election in Maine’s congressional district 2. Fruits and Votes. https://fruitsandvotes.wordpress.com/2018/12/31/the-2018-ranked-choice-voting-election-in-maines-congressional-district-no-2/

Anthony

Fried

Glover

Kimball

D. 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

Avalanche Insights . (2020). https://www.avalancheinsights.com/beliefs-about-gender-in-america-drive-perceived-electability

Baltz

(2022). The probability of casting a pivotal vote in an instant runoff voting election. ArXiv Preprint arXiv:2210.01657.

10.

Bartels

L. M.

(1985). Expectations and preferences in presidential nominating campaigns. American Political Science Review, 79(3), 804–815. https://doi.org/10.2307/1956845

11.

Bartels

L. M.

(1988). Presidential primaries and the dynamics of public choice. Princeton University Press.

12.

Bartholdi

J. J.

Orlin

J. B.

(1991). Single transferable vote resists strategic voting. Social Choice and Welfare, 8(4), 341–354. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00183045

13.

Beltran Quan Kiu

(2023). Multiple choice. Chicago Magazine. https://www.chicagomag.com/chicago-magazine/february-2023/multiple-choice/

14.

Bibby

J. F.

Maisel

L. S.

(2003). Two parties-or more? The American party system. Westview Press.

15.

Blais

Nadeau

Gidengil

Nevitte

(2001). Measuring strategic voting in multiparty plurality elections. Electoral Studies, 20(3), 343–352. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0261-3794(00)00017-2

16.

Blais

Young

Turcotte

(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.

Boix

(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

18.

Boudreau

Colner

MacKenzie

S.A.

, 2020. Ranked-choice voting and political expression: How voting Aids narrow the gap between Informed and uninformed citizens. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3786972 or https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3786972

19.

Boudreau

Colner

MacKenzie

S. 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.

Boudreau

Elmendorf

C. S.

MacKenzie

S. 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.

Bowler

Donovan

(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.

Bowler

Donovan

Brockington

(2003). Electoral reform and minority representation: Local experiments with alternative elections. Ohio State University Press.

23.

Brambor

Clark

W. R.

Golder

(2006). Understanding interaction models: Improving empirical analyses. Political Analysis, 14(1), 63–82. https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/mpi014

24.

Bryer

(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.

Buckley

Mariani

McGing

White

(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

26.

Buisseret

Prato

(2022). Politics transformed? How ranked choice voting shapes electoral strategies. (Draft). https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/files/piep/files/rcv_20220325.pdf

27.

Burden

B. C.

Jones

P. E.

(2009). Strategic voting in the US. Duverger’s law of plurality voting (pp. 47–64). Springer.

28.

Burnett

C. M.

Kogan

(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.

Burnham

(2013). Women and reform in Cincinnati: responsible citizenship and the politics of “Good Government,” 1924–1955. Ohio Valley History, 13(2), 48–69.

30.

Burnham

R. 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

31.

Cerrone

McClintock

(2021). Ranked-choice voting, runoff, and democracy: Insights from Maine and other US states. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3769409 or https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3769409

32.

Cohen

(2013). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Routledge.

33.

Coll

J. 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

34.

Common Cause of New York . (2021). Common cause/NY+ and rank the vote NYC release exit poll on ranked choice voting in bronx, queens special elections. https://readme.readmedia.com/Common-Cause-NY-Rank-the-Vote-Release-Exit-Poll-on-Ranked-Choice-Voting-in-Bronx-Queens-Special-Elections/17727309

35.

Cox

G. W.

(1987). Duverger’s law and strategic voting [Dissertation, University of California].

36.

Culbert

(2015). Realizing “strategic” voting in presidential primaries. Rationality and Society, 27(2), 224–256. https://doi.org/10.1177/1043463115576139

37.

De Winter

Swyngedouw

Dumont

(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.

Diamond

Plattner

M. F.

(Eds.) (2006). Electoral systems and democracy. JHU Press.

39.

Donovan

(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.

40.

Donovan

Tolbert

Gracey

(2016). Campaign civility under preferential and plurality voting. Electoral Studies, 42(1), 157–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2016.02.009.

41.

Donovan

Tolbert

Gracey

(2019). Self-reported understanding of ranked-choice voting. Social Science Quarterly, 100(5), 1768–1776. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.12651

42.

Drutman

Strano

(2021). What we know about ranked-choice voting. New America. https://www.newamerica.org/political-reform/reports/what-we-know-about-ranked-choice-voting/

43.

Dummett

(1984). Voting procedures. Oxford University Press.

44.

Duverger

(1963). Political parties: Their organization and activity in the modern state. John Wiley.

45.

Dyck

J. J.

Pearson-Merkowitz

Coates

(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.

Eggers

A. C.

Nowacki

(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

47.

Eggers

A. C.

Vivyan

(2020). Who votes more strategically? American Political Science Review, 114(2), 470–485. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055419000820

48.

Engstrom

R. L.

(1990). Cincinnati’s 1988 proportional representation initiative. Electoral Studies, 9(3), 217–225. https://doi.org/10.1016/0261-3794(90)90027-6

49.

Esaiasson

(2011). Electoral losers revisited–how citizens react to defeat at the ballot box. Electoral Studies, 30(1), 102–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2010.09.009

50.

Farrell

D. M.

McAllister

(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.

Fisher

S. 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

52.

George

(2022). Walker and Gara band together in Alaska governor’s race with a joint ad against Dunleavy. Alaska Public Media. https://alaskapublic.org/2022/10/31/walker-and-gara-band-together-in-alaska-governors-race-with-a-joint-ad-against-dunleavy/

53.

Green

(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

54.

Green

(2018). Preference flow data for the 2015 new south wales election. Australian Broadcasting Corporation. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-08-13/preference-flow-data-for-the-2015-nsw-election/9388642

55.

Green-Armytage

(2011). Four Condorcet-hare hybrid methods for single-winner elections. Voting Matters, 29(1), 1–14.

56.

Grofman

Feld

S. 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.

Gutiérrez

Simmons

A. J.

Transue

(2022). Ranked-choice voting and democratic attitudes (p. 1532673X221109519). American Politics Research.

58.

Herz

(2022). Ranked choice voting, in first test in Alaska, is already under attack. Anchorage Daily News. https://www.adn.com/politics/2022/08/17/ranked-choice-voting-in-first-test-in-alaska-is-already-under-attack/

59.

Hillygus

D. S.

Treul

S. 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.

Hirczy

(1995). STV and the representation of women. PS: Political Science and Politics, 28(4), 711–713. https://doi.org/10.2307/420523

61.

House of Commons . (2010). The coalition government’s programme of political and constitutional reform. House of Commons Political and Constitutional Reform Committee. https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmpolcon/358/358i.pdf

62.

Igersheim

Durand

Hamlin

Laslier

J. 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.

Imai

Ratkovic

(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.

Jacobs

Miller

(2013). Ranked choice voting could diminish equality. Star-tribune.

65.

Jacobs

Miller

(2014). Rank choice voting and the 2013 Minneapolis elections. University of Minnesota.

66.

Jesse

N. 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.

John

Smith

Zack

(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.

Kelly

J. T.

Loepp

(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.

Kilgour

D. M.

Grégoire

J. C.

Foley

A. 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.

Kimball

D. C.

Kropf

(2016). Voter competence with cumulative voting. Social Science Quarterly, 97(3), 619–635. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.12277

71.

King

Gelman

(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.

King

Keohane

R. O.

Verba

(2021). Designing social inquiry: Scientific inference in qualitative research. Princeton University Press.

73.

Knickerbocker

(2011). Mitt Romney’s ‘electability’ against Obama key to Iowa caucuses. https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/President/2011/1231/Mitt-Romney-s-electability-against-Obama-key-to-Iowa-caucuses

74.

Laslier

J. 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.

Leonhardt

(2021). The morning: How to vote strategically (p. 2021). New York Times.

76.

Lewyn

M. E.

(2012). Two cheers for instant runoff voting. Phoenix Law Review, 6(1), 117–136.

77.

Lijphart

(1991). Constitutional choices for new democracies. Journal of Democracy, 2(1), 72–84. https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.1991.0011

78.

Masket

(2019). There’s no good way to determine electability other than holding elections. Pacific Standard. https://psmag.com/ideas/theres-no-good-way-to-determine-electability-other-than-holding-elections

79.

McDaniel

J. 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

80.

McGing

(2013). The single transferable vote and women’s representation in Ireland. Irish Political Studies, 28(3), 322–340. https://doi.org/10.1080/07907184.2013.818536

81.

McGinn

(2020) Rating rankings: Effect of instant run‐off voting on participation and civility. Unpublished manuscript. https://eamonmcginn.com.s3-website-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/papers/IRV_in_Minneapolis.pdf

82.

McKee

S. C.

Hood

M. V.

(2013). Strategic voting in a US Senate election. Political Behavior, 35(4), 729–751. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-012-9215-z

83.

Menocal

A. R.

(2011). Why electoral systems matter: An analysis of their incentives and effects on key areas of governance. Overseas Development Institute.

84.

Montgomery

J. M.

Nyhan

Torres

(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.

Neely

Blash

Cook

(2005). An assessment of ranked-choice voting in the San Francisco 2004 election. Public Research Institute, San Francisco State University.

86.

Neely

McDaniel

(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

87.

New York City Board of Elections . (2021). Board of elections in the city of New York 2021 primary official ranked choice rounds. https://vote.nyc/sites/default/files/pdf/election_results/2021/20210622Primary_Election/rcv/024306_1.html

88.

Nielson

(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

89.

Niou

E. M.

(2001). Strategic voting under plurality and runoff rules. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 13(2), 209–227. https://doi.org/10.1177/0951692801013002004

90.

Norrander

(1996). Presidential nomination politics in the post-reform era. Political Research Quarterly, 49(4), 875–915. https://doi.org/10.1177/106591299604900411

91.

Orr

(2002). Ballot order: Donkey voting in Australia. Election Law Journal: Rules, Politics, and Policy, 1(4), 573–578. https://doi.org/10.1089/153312902760403914

92.

Pathe

(2022). High-stakes senate primary tests Missouri Republicans’ tolerance for an eric Greitens return. CNN. https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/31/politics/missouri-senate-republican-primary-eric-greitens/index.html

93.

Peyton

Huber

G. A.

Coppock

(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

94.

Phippen

(2022). What is ranked choice voting, the new election process used in Alaska? https://www.foxnews.com/politics/what-is-ranked-choice-voting-new-election-process-used-alaska

95.

Potthoff

R. F.

Munger

M. 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.

Reilly

(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

97.

Resnick

(2019). Bernie’s plan to Leapfrog Biden: Prove He’s more electable. The Daily Beast. https://www.thedailybeast.com/bernie-sanders-plan-to-leapfrog-joe-biden-prove-hes-more-electable

98.

Richie

Daley

(2021). In NYC, ranked choice voting succeeded. The Hill. https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/563339-in-nyc-ranked-choice-voting-succeeded/

99.

Richie

Oestericher

Otis

Seitz-Brown

(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.

Rickershauser

Aldrich

J. 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.

Riker

W. 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.

Rosenbaum

P. R.

Rubin

D. 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

103.

Santucci

(2018). Evidence of a winning-cohesion tradeoff under multi-winner ranked-choice voting. Electoral Studies, 52(1), 128–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2017.11.003

104.

Santucci

(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.

Sbano

(2020). How should Alaskans choose? The debate over ranked choice voting. Alaska Law Review, 37(1), 295.

106.

Seitz-Ward

Sarlin

(2016). Hilary Clinton’s closing argument of the primary. MSNBC. https://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/hillary-clintons-closing-argument-the-primary-msna767476

107.

Shineman

V. 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.

Simmons

A. J.

Gutierrez

Transue

J. 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.

Stone

W. J.

Rapoport

R. B.

Atkeson

L. R.

(1995). A simulation model of presidential nomination choice. American Journal of Political Science, 39(10), 135–161.

110.

Townsend

(2021). Ranked choice voting – what now? Alaska Policy Forum. https://alaskapolicyforum.org/2021/07/ranked-choice-voting-what-now/

111.

Utych

S. 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

112.

Utych

S. M.

Kam

C. D.

(2014). Viability, information seeking, and vote choice. The Journal of Politics, 76(1), 152–166. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0022381613001126

113.

Van der Straeten

Laslier

J. F.

Sauger

Blais

(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

114.

Vitali

Talbot

Bowman

(2022). Begich says he will accept results, but criticizes Alaska’s ranked choice ‘confusion’. NBC News. https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/meetthepressblog/begich-says-will-accept-results-criticizes-alaskas-ranked-choice-confu-rcna43388

115.

Warren

K. F.

(2020). Why has Missouri turned so red? St Louis Post-Dispatch. https://www.stltoday.com/opinion/columnists/kenneth-f-warren-why-has-missouri-turned-so-red/article_8c4083ad-9931-5276-9f35-b4405de46686.html

Supplementary Material

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.

0.00 MB

0.18 MB