Lessons from the Use of Ranked Choice Voting in American Presidential Primaries

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Richie, Rob
Data de Publicação: 2021
Outros Autores: Oestericher, Benjamin, Otis, Deb, Seitz-Brown, Jeremy
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
Texto Completo: https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v9i2.3960
Resumo: Grounded in experience in 2020, both major political parties have reasons to expand use of ranked choice voting (RCV) in their 2024 presidential primaries. RCV may offer a ‘win-win’ solution benefiting both the parties and their voters. RCV would build on both the pre-1968 American tradition of parties determining a coalitional presidential nominee through multiple ballots at party conventions and the modern practice of allowing voters to effectively choose their nominees in primaries. Increasingly used by parties around the world in picking their leaders, RCV may allow voters to crowd-source a coalitional nominee. Most published research about RCV focuses on state and local elections. In contrast, this article analyzes the impact on voters, candidates, and parties from five state Democratic parties using RCV in party-run presidential nomination contests in 2020. First, it uses polls and results to examine how more widespread use of RCV might have affected the trajectory of contests for the 2016 Republican nomination. Second, it contrasts how more than three million voters in the 2020 Democratic presidential primaries backed withdrawn candidates with the low rate of such wasted votes for withdrawn candidates in the states with RCV ballots. Finally, it concludes with an examination of how RCV might best interact with the parties’ current rules and potential changes to those rules.
id RCAP_0bb920a1e8706cd67f96d2754e279ae8
oai_identifier_str oai:ojs.cogitatiopress.com:article/3960
network_acronym_str RCAP
network_name_str Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
repository_id_str 7160
spelling Lessons from the Use of Ranked Choice Voting in American Presidential Primarieselectoral reform; instant runoff; presidential primaries; ranked choice votingGrounded in experience in 2020, both major political parties have reasons to expand use of ranked choice voting (RCV) in their 2024 presidential primaries. RCV may offer a ‘win-win’ solution benefiting both the parties and their voters. RCV would build on both the pre-1968 American tradition of parties determining a coalitional presidential nominee through multiple ballots at party conventions and the modern practice of allowing voters to effectively choose their nominees in primaries. Increasingly used by parties around the world in picking their leaders, RCV may allow voters to crowd-source a coalitional nominee. Most published research about RCV focuses on state and local elections. In contrast, this article analyzes the impact on voters, candidates, and parties from five state Democratic parties using RCV in party-run presidential nomination contests in 2020. First, it uses polls and results to examine how more widespread use of RCV might have affected the trajectory of contests for the 2016 Republican nomination. Second, it contrasts how more than three million voters in the 2020 Democratic presidential primaries backed withdrawn candidates with the low rate of such wasted votes for withdrawn candidates in the states with RCV ballots. Finally, it concludes with an examination of how RCV might best interact with the parties’ current rules and potential changes to those rules.Cogitatio2021-06-15info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/articleapplication/pdfhttps://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v9i2.3960oai:ojs.cogitatiopress.com:article/3960Politics and Governance; Vol 9, No 2 (2021): The Politics, Promise and Peril of Ranked Choice Voting; 354-3642183-2463reponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãoinstacron:RCAAPenghttps://www.cogitatiopress.com/politicsandgovernance/article/view/3960https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v9i2.3960https://www.cogitatiopress.com/politicsandgovernance/article/view/3960/3960Copyright (c) 2021 Rob Richie, Benjamin Oestericher, Deb Otis, Jeremy Seitz-Brownhttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessRichie, RobOestericher, BenjaminOtis, DebSeitz-Brown, Jeremy2022-10-21T16:03:04Zoai:ojs.cogitatiopress.com:article/3960Portal AgregadorONGhttps://www.rcaap.pt/oai/openaireopendoar:71602024-03-19T16:13:45.029758Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãofalse
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Lessons from the Use of Ranked Choice Voting in American Presidential Primaries
title Lessons from the Use of Ranked Choice Voting in American Presidential Primaries
spellingShingle Lessons from the Use of Ranked Choice Voting in American Presidential Primaries
Richie, Rob
electoral reform; instant runoff; presidential primaries; ranked choice voting
title_short Lessons from the Use of Ranked Choice Voting in American Presidential Primaries
title_full Lessons from the Use of Ranked Choice Voting in American Presidential Primaries
title_fullStr Lessons from the Use of Ranked Choice Voting in American Presidential Primaries
title_full_unstemmed Lessons from the Use of Ranked Choice Voting in American Presidential Primaries
title_sort Lessons from the Use of Ranked Choice Voting in American Presidential Primaries
author Richie, Rob
author_facet Richie, Rob
Oestericher, Benjamin
Otis, Deb
Seitz-Brown, Jeremy
author_role author
author2 Oestericher, Benjamin
Otis, Deb
Seitz-Brown, Jeremy
author2_role author
author
author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Richie, Rob
Oestericher, Benjamin
Otis, Deb
Seitz-Brown, Jeremy
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv electoral reform; instant runoff; presidential primaries; ranked choice voting
topic electoral reform; instant runoff; presidential primaries; ranked choice voting
description Grounded in experience in 2020, both major political parties have reasons to expand use of ranked choice voting (RCV) in their 2024 presidential primaries. RCV may offer a ‘win-win’ solution benefiting both the parties and their voters. RCV would build on both the pre-1968 American tradition of parties determining a coalitional presidential nominee through multiple ballots at party conventions and the modern practice of allowing voters to effectively choose their nominees in primaries. Increasingly used by parties around the world in picking their leaders, RCV may allow voters to crowd-source a coalitional nominee. Most published research about RCV focuses on state and local elections. In contrast, this article analyzes the impact on voters, candidates, and parties from five state Democratic parties using RCV in party-run presidential nomination contests in 2020. First, it uses polls and results to examine how more widespread use of RCV might have affected the trajectory of contests for the 2016 Republican nomination. Second, it contrasts how more than three million voters in the 2020 Democratic presidential primaries backed withdrawn candidates with the low rate of such wasted votes for withdrawn candidates in the states with RCV ballots. Finally, it concludes with an examination of how RCV might best interact with the parties’ current rules and potential changes to those rules.
publishDate 2021
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2021-06-15
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v9i2.3960
oai:ojs.cogitatiopress.com:article/3960
url https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v9i2.3960
identifier_str_mv oai:ojs.cogitatiopress.com:article/3960
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv https://www.cogitatiopress.com/politicsandgovernance/article/view/3960
https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v9i2.3960
https://www.cogitatiopress.com/politicsandgovernance/article/view/3960/3960
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv Copyright (c) 2021 Rob Richie, Benjamin Oestericher, Deb Otis, Jeremy Seitz-Brown
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
rights_invalid_str_mv Copyright (c) 2021 Rob Richie, Benjamin Oestericher, Deb Otis, Jeremy Seitz-Brown
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Cogitatio
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Cogitatio
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Politics and Governance; Vol 9, No 2 (2021): The Politics, Promise and Peril of Ranked Choice Voting; 354-364
2183-2463
reponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação
instacron:RCAAP
instname_str Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação
instacron_str RCAAP
institution RCAAP
reponame_str Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
collection Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
repository.name.fl_str_mv Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação
repository.mail.fl_str_mv
_version_ 1799130591166201856