Variants of Ranked-Choice Voting from a Strategic Perspective
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2021 |
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.v9i2.3955 |
Resumo: | Ranked-choice voting has come to mean a range of electoral systems. Broadly, they can facilitate (a) majority winners in single-seat districts, (b) majority rule with minority representation in multi-seat districts, or (c) majority sweeps in multi-seat districts. Further, such systems can combine with rules to encourage/discourage slate voting. This article describes five major versions used, abandoned, and/or proposed for US public elections: alternative vote, single transferable vote, block-preferential voting, the bottoms-up system, and alternative vote with numbered posts. It then considers each from the perspective of a ‘political strategist.’ Simple models of voting (one with two parties, another with three) draw attention to real-world strategic issues: effects on minority representation, importance of party cues, and reasons for the political strategist to care about how voters rank choices. Unsurprisingly, different rules produce different outcomes with the same sets of ballots. Specific problems from the strategist’s perspective are: ‘majority reversal,’ serving ‘two masters,’ and undisciplined third-party voters (or ‘pure’ independents). Some of these stem from well-known phenomena, e.g., ranking truncation and ‘vote leakage.’ The article also alludes to ‘vote-management’ tactics, i.e., rationing nominations and ensuring even distributions of first-choice votes. Illustrative examples come from American history and comparative politics. A running theme is the two-pronged failure of the Progressive Era reform wave: with respect to minority representation, then ranked voting's durability. |
id |
RCAP_157ca37040d55dd992ba47462532d400 |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:ojs.cogitatiopress.com:article/3955 |
network_acronym_str |
RCAP |
network_name_str |
Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) |
repository_id_str |
7160 |
spelling |
Variants of Ranked-Choice Voting from a Strategic Perspectivealternative vote; ballot exhaustion; block-preferential voting; bottoms-up system; exhaustive-preferential system; instant runoff voting; ranked-choice voting; open-list proportional representation; single transferable vote; strategic coordinationRanked-choice voting has come to mean a range of electoral systems. Broadly, they can facilitate (a) majority winners in single-seat districts, (b) majority rule with minority representation in multi-seat districts, or (c) majority sweeps in multi-seat districts. Further, such systems can combine with rules to encourage/discourage slate voting. This article describes five major versions used, abandoned, and/or proposed for US public elections: alternative vote, single transferable vote, block-preferential voting, the bottoms-up system, and alternative vote with numbered posts. It then considers each from the perspective of a ‘political strategist.’ Simple models of voting (one with two parties, another with three) draw attention to real-world strategic issues: effects on minority representation, importance of party cues, and reasons for the political strategist to care about how voters rank choices. Unsurprisingly, different rules produce different outcomes with the same sets of ballots. Specific problems from the strategist’s perspective are: ‘majority reversal,’ serving ‘two masters,’ and undisciplined third-party voters (or ‘pure’ independents). Some of these stem from well-known phenomena, e.g., ranking truncation and ‘vote leakage.’ The article also alludes to ‘vote-management’ tactics, i.e., rationing nominations and ensuring even distributions of first-choice votes. Illustrative examples come from American history and comparative politics. A running theme is the two-pronged failure of the Progressive Era reform wave: with respect to minority representation, then ranked voting's durability.Cogitatio2021-06-15info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/articleapplication/pdfhttps://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v9i2.3955oai:ojs.cogitatiopress.com:article/3955Politics and Governance; Vol 9, No 2 (2021): The Politics, Promise and Peril of Ranked Choice Voting; 344-3532183-2463reponame: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/3955https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v9i2.3955https://www.cogitatiopress.com/politicsandgovernance/article/view/3955/3955Copyright (c) 2021 Jack Santuccihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessSantucci, Jack2022-12-22T15:16:26Zoai:ojs.cogitatiopress.com:article/3955Portal AgregadorONGhttps://www.rcaap.pt/oai/openaireopendoar:71602024-03-19T16:22:22.543677Repositório 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 |
Variants of Ranked-Choice Voting from a Strategic Perspective |
title |
Variants of Ranked-Choice Voting from a Strategic Perspective |
spellingShingle |
Variants of Ranked-Choice Voting from a Strategic Perspective Santucci, Jack alternative vote; ballot exhaustion; block-preferential voting; bottoms-up system; exhaustive-preferential system; instant runoff voting; ranked-choice voting; open-list proportional representation; single transferable vote; strategic coordination |
title_short |
Variants of Ranked-Choice Voting from a Strategic Perspective |
title_full |
Variants of Ranked-Choice Voting from a Strategic Perspective |
title_fullStr |
Variants of Ranked-Choice Voting from a Strategic Perspective |
title_full_unstemmed |
Variants of Ranked-Choice Voting from a Strategic Perspective |
title_sort |
Variants of Ranked-Choice Voting from a Strategic Perspective |
author |
Santucci, Jack |
author_facet |
Santucci, Jack |
author_role |
author |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Santucci, Jack |
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv |
alternative vote; ballot exhaustion; block-preferential voting; bottoms-up system; exhaustive-preferential system; instant runoff voting; ranked-choice voting; open-list proportional representation; single transferable vote; strategic coordination |
topic |
alternative vote; ballot exhaustion; block-preferential voting; bottoms-up system; exhaustive-preferential system; instant runoff voting; ranked-choice voting; open-list proportional representation; single transferable vote; strategic coordination |
description |
Ranked-choice voting has come to mean a range of electoral systems. Broadly, they can facilitate (a) majority winners in single-seat districts, (b) majority rule with minority representation in multi-seat districts, or (c) majority sweeps in multi-seat districts. Further, such systems can combine with rules to encourage/discourage slate voting. This article describes five major versions used, abandoned, and/or proposed for US public elections: alternative vote, single transferable vote, block-preferential voting, the bottoms-up system, and alternative vote with numbered posts. It then considers each from the perspective of a ‘political strategist.’ Simple models of voting (one with two parties, another with three) draw attention to real-world strategic issues: effects on minority representation, importance of party cues, and reasons for the political strategist to care about how voters rank choices. Unsurprisingly, different rules produce different outcomes with the same sets of ballots. Specific problems from the strategist’s perspective are: ‘majority reversal,’ serving ‘two masters,’ and undisciplined third-party voters (or ‘pure’ independents). Some of these stem from well-known phenomena, e.g., ranking truncation and ‘vote leakage.’ The article also alludes to ‘vote-management’ tactics, i.e., rationing nominations and ensuring even distributions of first-choice votes. Illustrative examples come from American history and comparative politics. A running theme is the two-pronged failure of the Progressive Era reform wave: with respect to minority representation, then ranked voting's durability. |
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.v9i2.3955 oai:ojs.cogitatiopress.com:article/3955 |
url |
https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v9i2.3955 |
identifier_str_mv |
oai:ojs.cogitatiopress.com:article/3955 |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
eng |
language |
eng |
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
https://www.cogitatiopress.com/politicsandgovernance/article/view/3955 https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v9i2.3955 https://www.cogitatiopress.com/politicsandgovernance/article/view/3955/3955 |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
Copyright (c) 2021 Jack Santucci http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
rights_invalid_str_mv |
Copyright (c) 2021 Jack Santucci 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; 344-353 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_ |
1799130669547257856 |