What the research is showing
-
"The findings of the experiment were stark. I found that RCV produced significantly lower levels of voter confidence, voter satisfaction, and ease of use. It also increased the perception that the voting process was slanted against the respondent’s party. Similarly, I found that it increased the amount of time it took to vote.... In this analysis, I found that negative spending increased significantly in Maine following the implementation of ranked-choice voting..."
MIT – Jesse Clark, The Effect of Ranked-Choice Voting in Maine (March 18, 2021)
-
"The data show that in a typical ranked choice race, nearly 1-in-20 (4.8%) voters improperly marks their ballot in at least one way. The rate of one type of improper marking (overvoting) is 14 times more likely to occur on a ranked choice race than a non-ranked choice race that appears on the same ballot. Furthermore, we find that votes in ranked choice races are nearly 10 times more likely to be rejected due to an improper mark than votes in non-ranked choice races. These findings raise key normative questions about voter participation and representation in ranked choice systems..."
University of Pennsylvania – Stephen Pettigrew & Dylan Radley, Ballot Marking Errors in Ranked-Choice Voting (Dec. 20, 2023)
-
A University of Minnesota Humphrey School of Public Affairs studied the impacts of RCV in states that use that system. It found little to no evidence RCV changes political polarization, no evidence it increases successful independent and third party candidates, evidence that it decreases voter participation especially among African America voters and had little impact on negative campaigning.
University of Minnesota - Penny Thomas & Larry Jacobs, Where’s the Evidence Supporting Ranked Choice Voting Claims? (April 2023)
-
“In any other context, election advocates would raise alarm bells about a policy that results in a 5% error rate, heightens voter confusion, and potentially decreases turnout, particularly with heightened effects among low-income and low-education voters. But thus far, the same level of alarm has seemingly not occurred with RCV, even though the consequences are just as significant... Voters and legislators considering RCV should carefully assess the changed or unpredictable electoral outcomes RCV will bring in their state, including candidates of color, and whether these outcomes further or undermine their goals.”
Institute for Responsive Government - Ranked Choice Voting: Avoiding a One-Size-Fits-All Approach (May 19, 2024)
-
Lower-income communities showed less engagement with ranked-choice voting in NYC primary. Data in the 2021 NYC mayoral election confirmed this by showing that “whiter, wealthier neighborhoods were more likely to employ the new ranking system than lower income areas of the city, many of which are home to Black, Latino and Asian communities."
Politico Data Analysis – Joe Anuta, Lower-income communities showed less engagement with ranked-choice voting in NYC primary (Sept. 08, 2021)
-
"If this were a statewide primary election, this would easily be tens of thousands of voters, enough to change the outcome of a close election. When it comes to a fundamental right such as voting, the confusion we see around RCV is concerning. Moreover, confusion has downstream effects. Confusion is negatively related to ranking all the candidates in a contest, voters’ confidence that their ballot was counted correctly, and their support for RCV. This constellation of results is consistent with arguments made during historic repeal campaigns (Harris 1930; Santucci 2022). Additionally, we find a consistent and troubling direct effect for Hispanic voters who are more confused than other voters. This may create a bias in the system that privileges the preferences of white voters over those of Hispanics."
Southwestern Social Science Association - Lonna Rae Atkeson, Eli McKown-Dawson, Jack Santucci, & Kyle L. Saunders, The impact of voter confusion in ranked choice voting (March 19, 2024)