Shaky political “science” misses mark on ranked choice voting
What does political science research say about ranked choice voting? A number of misleading studies fall well short of real “science”
A research paper by Steven Hill and Paul Haughey
(view a PDF of the full report here)
ABSTRACT
This paper is designed for policymakers, journalists, political scientists, researchers and civic leaders seeking to assess the quality and credibility of scholarly research about ranked choice voting (RCV). It reviews 40 studies on RCV, many of which have been cited in public debates over RCV reforms. We summarize and assess this research and find that the most reliable studies were grounded in real-world election data, while many studies critiquing RCV have relied on flawed survey methods and abstract models that failed to accurately simulate what happens in real-world elections. Despite the availability of data from over 700 RCV elections since 2004 – spanning 16 million voters across 50+ jurisdictions – many studies eschewed empirical election data in favor of speculative or unrealistic simulations.
We evaluate existing research on RCV’s impacts on representation, voter error, turnout, demographic participation and more. Studies using actual election results consistently showed positive or neutral effects, whereas many critical findings stemmed from questionable methodologies and poorly constructed surveys. Moreover, many critiques of RCV often lacked comparative context, failing to assess how alternative electoral systems (e.g., plurality, runoff, Condorcet, approval, fusion) would perform on similar metrics; oftentimes the critique advanced against RCV applied even more to these other electoral systems, but that was not analyzed or mentioned. Other studies made sweeping claims based on a small sample size and limited evidence, in some cases only a single election. Many of these studies also lacked peer review and exhibited selective use of data, undermining their credibility. Nevertheless these flawed studies have become influential due to being uncritically and repeatedly cited by other researchers, journalists and anti-RCV activists.
(view a PDF of the full report here)