Come-from-behind victories under ranked-choice voting and runoff: The impact on voter satisfaction

IF 1.4 Q2 POLITICAL SCIENCE
Joseph Cerrone, Cynthia McClintock
{"title":"Come-from-behind victories under ranked-choice voting and runoff: The impact on voter satisfaction","authors":"Joseph Cerrone,&nbsp;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 Similarly, RCV was repealed or faced a visible repeal attempt in the vast majority of U.S. jurisdictions that experienced a CFBV in the first or second use of the rule.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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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.

在排名选择投票和决选下后来居上的胜利:对选民满意度的影响
排名选择投票(RCV)和决选都试图通过让更广泛认可的竞争对手通过后来居上的胜利(CFBVs)来阻止只有少数人支持的候选人当选。尽管CFBVs是RCV和径流固有的,但它们很少受到学术关注。这项研究表明,在选民的现状偏见中,CFBVs会引发不满。在一项针对美国选民的调查实验中,RCV下的CFBVs显著降低了满意度,而决选下的负面影响较弱。同样,在第一次或第二次使用该规则时出现CFBV的绝大多数美国司法管辖区,RCV被废除或面临明显的废除尝试。决选的情况并非如此。我们鼓励加强选民教育,包括关于RCV下CFBVs的基本原理和机制,以及考虑决选和其他鼓励选举获得多数支持的候选人的规则。相关文章McCarthy,Devin和Jack Santucci。2021.“排名选择投票是现代美国政治中的一个世代问题”;政策49(1):33-60。https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12390.尼尔森,林赛。2017年,《美国的排名选择投票和对民主的态度:一项调查实验的结果》;政策45(4):535-70。https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12212.斯蒂尔斯,迪特。2019.“回顾性投票的静态和动态模型:对个人层面的澄清和应用”;政策47(5):859-76。https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12324.
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Politics & Policy
Politics & Policy POLITICAL SCIENCE-
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
23.10%
发文量
61
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信