Are ‘Come-from-Behind' RCV Winners Different? A Comparative Analysis

• In Event: Reactions to Ranked-Choice Voting

Abstract

RCV enables candidates who are behind on first choice votes but gain significant secondary support to receive transfer votes from excluded candidates and win elections which they would lose in a straight plurality contest. Such “come-from-behind” or "leap-frog" results are relatively unusual — most RCV elections deliver the same result as plurality contest — but attract significant attention when they do occur. This paper examines the incidence and effects of such non-plurality outcomes at partisan RCV elections in Australia, Ireland and the United States. We find that leap-frog winners tend to adopt more centrist campaign strategies and policy, but also that come-from-behind victories have spurred legal challenges and repeal attempts. Both findings underscore the way RCV changes political behavior and political outcomes compared to plurality elections.

Authors

• Benjamin Reilly, East-West Center

• Jack Santucci, Drexel University