{"title":"Come-from-behind victories under ranked-choice voting and runoff: The impact on voter satisfaction","authors":"Joseph Cerrone, Cynthia McClintock","doi":"10.1111/polp.12544","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <p>Both ranked-choice voting (RCV) and runoff seek to prevent the election of candidates with only minority support by enabling more broadly approved rivals to win through come-from-behind victories (CFBVs). Although CFBVs are intrinsic to RCV and runoff, they have received little scholarly attention. This study suggests that, amid voters' status quo bias, CFBVs provoke dissatisfaction. In a survey experiment fielded on U.S. voters, CFBVs under RCV significantly reduced satisfaction, while there was a weaker negative effect under runoff. Similarly, RCV was repealed or faced a visible repeal attempt in the vast majority of U.S. jurisdictions that experienced a CFBV in the first or second use of the rule. This was not the case for runoff. We encourage greater voter education, including regarding the rationale for and mechanics of CFBVs under RCV as well as consideration of runoff and other rules that encourage the election of candidates with majority support.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Related Articles</h3>\n \n <p>McCarthy, Devin, and Jack Santucci. 2021. “Ranked Choice Voting as a Generational Issue in Modern American Politics.” <i>Politics & Policy</i> 49(1): 33–60. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12390.</p>\n \n <p>Nielson, Lindsay. 2017. “Ranked Choice Voting and Attitudes toward Democracy in the United States: Results from a Survey Experiment.” <i>Politics & Policy</i> 45(4): 535–70. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12212.</p>\n \n <p>Stiers, Dieter. 2019. “Static and Dynamic Models of Retrospective Voting: A Clarification and Application to the Individual Level.” <i>Politics & Policy</i> 47(5): 859–76. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12324.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":51679,"journal":{"name":"Politics & Policy","volume":"51 4","pages":"569-587"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Politics & Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/polp.12544","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Both ranked-choice voting (RCV) and runoff seek to prevent the election of candidates with only minority support by enabling more broadly approved rivals to win through come-from-behind victories (CFBVs). Although CFBVs are intrinsic to RCV and runoff, they have received little scholarly attention. This study suggests that, amid voters' status quo bias, CFBVs provoke dissatisfaction. In a survey experiment fielded on U.S. voters, CFBVs under RCV significantly reduced satisfaction, while there was a weaker negative effect under runoff. Similarly, RCV was repealed or faced a visible repeal attempt in the vast majority of U.S. jurisdictions that experienced a CFBV in the first or second use of the rule. This was not the case for runoff. We encourage greater voter education, including regarding the rationale for and mechanics of CFBVs under RCV as well as consideration of runoff and other rules that encourage the election of candidates with majority support.
Related Articles
McCarthy, Devin, and Jack Santucci. 2021. “Ranked Choice Voting as a Generational Issue in Modern American Politics.” Politics & Policy 49(1): 33–60. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12390.
Nielson, Lindsay. 2017. “Ranked Choice Voting and Attitudes toward Democracy in the United States: Results from a Survey Experiment.” Politics & Policy 45(4): 535–70. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12212.
Stiers, Dieter. 2019. “Static and Dynamic Models of Retrospective Voting: A Clarification and Application to the Individual Level.” Politics & Policy 47(5): 859–76. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12324.