U.S. Voters’ Satisfaction with Ranked-Choice Voting, Runoff, and Plurality

• In Event: Reactions to Ranked-Choice Voting

Abstract

Do voters prefer ranked-choice voting (RCV) to plurality? Do they prefer RCV to runoff? RCV and runoff are widely considered to be more beneficial for political pluralism than the plurality rule commonly used in the United States—as they increase the number of parties and candidates, enhance voter choice, and encourage ideological moderation and civility. Yet, there has been opposition. Several U.S. municipalities have repealed RCV or stalled its implementation. In Maine, the Republican Party’s opposition intensified after a “come-from-behind” victory in the 2018 election in the Second Congressional District. This surprising opposition highlights the need for scholars to more deeply engage with how voters respond to distinct electoral rules. This study will explore voters’ satisfaction with RCV, runoff, and plurality, with a particular focus on how voters react to a “come-from-behind” victory under RCV or runoff versus a non-majority winner under plurality. We will utilize a survey experiment to expose voters to a close election modeled on the controversial election in Maine’s Second Congressional District. The experiment will vary three treatments: (1) the electoral rule (RCV, runoff, plurality); (2) the presence or likelihood of a “come-from-behind” victory; and (3) the partisan identity of the winner (Republican, Democrat). In addition, this study will analyze a spectrum of cases of both adoption and repeal of RCV and runoff in the U.S. Do voters find the election of a candidate without majority support problematic? To prevent the election of a candidate without majority support, do voters prefer RCV or runoff? Why? Is there a learning process? We believe that answers to these questions are crucial to advancing the debate about electoral reform in the U.S. and worldwide.

Authors

• Joseph Cerrone, George Washington University

• Cynthia McClintock, George Washington University