Is Ranked Choice Voting Cheaper?
Rank Choice Voting (RCV) is often touted as a cost-effective alternative to traditional voting systems, but it is important to examine these claims with a skeptical eye. One supposed advantage is the elimination of costly runoff elections when no candidate obtains a majority in the initial round. RCV aims to determine the majority through a ranking and elimination process, theoretically saving money on separate runoff elections. However, the actual cost savings may not be as significant as proponents suggest.
Another claim is that RCV promotes more positive campaigning and encourages candidates to appeal to a wider voter base, leading to more efficient and cost-effective campaigns. While this may sound promising, it is unclear how consistently this occurs in practice. Negative and divisive strategies are not exclusive to traditional systems, and it remains uncertain whether RCV truly fosters a more positive campaign environment.
It is important to consider the potential drawbacks and challenges associated with implementing RCV, such as voter education and understanding the complex mechanisms of the ranking system, and potential demographics factors correlated with exhausted or spoiled ballots.
The claim that RCV increases voter turnout is not entirely substantiated. While there are some studies suggesting a positive effect on turnout, the evidence is mixed, and it is difficult to isolate the impact of RCV from other factors influencing voter participation, in some cases like Alaska using RCV for the first time, we had the lowest voter turnout in the history of our State. 44.44%.
Lastly, proponents suggest that RCV benefits third-party candidates and can provide them with a more level playing field. While this may seem appealing, it is essential to analyze the real-world implications and potential consequences for third-party representation within the RCV framework. Currently with the evidence from Maine and Alaska. There have been 12 Democrat wins in the Maine State Legislature, 1 US House Seat, Alaska 2 State Senate Seats and 1 US House Seat all using Rank Choice Voting, not including incumbent wins. Very little 3rd party success, in fact outside of 1 race in Alaska, no 3rd party success.
Claims made by RCV advocates regarding its cost-effectiveness should be critically evaluated. It is important to scrutinize the actual outcomes and consider the complexities and potential drawbacks associated with implementing RCV. In many cases expensive voter education is necessary to re-educate the people about how they need to vote. There are many cases we will bring up in this book about how demographics and ballot exhaustion, overvotes, and undervotes, correlate. We believe that one of the key pieces of Rank Choice Voting, also hurts our most vulnerable.
Importance of Voter Education and Cost
1. Burden of Elimination Rounds:
Ranked choice voting (RCV) introduces a convoluted and time-consuming process of elimination rounds, which can burden the ballot counting process. In traditional plurality-based systems, election results are typically determined swiftly after the initial vote. However, RCV requires multiple rounds of tabulation, where ballots are transported to a centralized location, resulting in increased costs and vulnerability to mismanagement. The prolonged tabulation process can lead to delays in declaring the winner, raising concerns of impropriety and undermining voter confidence.
2. Expensive Voter Education and Training:
The implementation of RCV necessitates costly voter education campaigns and training programs, adding a significant financial burden. Unlike traditional voting systems that children are already familiar with, RCV requires extensive education efforts to teach voters how to rank candidates and understand the complex elimination process. This includes not only educating adult voters but also developing specialized programs for children and non-English speakers who may struggle to comprehend RCV. The expense associated with educating the electorate raises questions about the cost-effectiveness of implementing RCV.
3. Disproportionate Impact on Vulnerable Groups:
RCV disproportionately affects vulnerable populations, including the elderly and non-English speakers. These groups may face difficulties comprehending the intricacies of ranking candidates and navigating the elimination process. The additional barriers imposed by RCV can lead to disenfranchisement, as these individuals may struggle to participate effectively in the electoral process. The need for extensive voter education campaigns to mitigate these disparities further amplifies the financial strain associated with RCV implementation.
4. Increased Potential for Election Irregularities:
Instances of election irregularities have been observed in jurisdictions that have implemented RCV. San Francisco's 2011 municipal election highlighted concerns over overvoting in precincts with higher proportions of minority and progressive voters. Studies conducted in Maine and New York City revealed negative consequences associated with RCV, including increased negative campaigning, high rates of "exhausted" ballots, and confusion among voters. These issues undermine the claim that RCV improves the electoral process and raise doubts about its fairness and accuracy.
Considering the significant costs of voter education, the confusion and potential for irregularities associated with RCV, and the disproportionate impact on vulnerable populations, it is crucial to critically evaluate the supposed benefits of RCV. The burden it places on the ballot counting process, the need for expensive education campaigns, and the potential for disenfranchisement suggest that the costs and drawbacks of RCV outweigh any potential advantages.
A study had an interesting finding was that cities utilizing RCV spent significantly more on elections than cities that did not, indicating a unique characteristic of these RCV cities that consistently increased their election expenditures.
Study Comparing Costs of RCV and Traditional Elections
The study collected data from 14 different municipalities, including a total of 239 elections, to analyze the cost of municipal elections. The election cycles were categorized based on their status as control or experimental cycles and their relative position to the implementation of Ranked-Choice Voting (RCV). Six categories were created, and the mean and standard deviation were calculated for each category.
The analysis further revealed that RCV election cycles, during the implementation phase, were on average more expensive than before implementation. RCV cities experienced a larger magnitude of average election expense increase compared to control cities during implementation election cycles. Control cities saw an average increase of $0.23 per person, while RCV cities experienced an average increase of $0.65 per person.
Regarding ongoing costs of RCV elections after implementation, they aimed to determine the cost of facilitating RCV elections on an ongoing basis after the initial implementation. The regression analysis indicated that election cycles in RCV cities cost significantly more compared to control cities. Based on the findings of the study comparing the cost differences between Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) and traditional elections, several important conclusions can be drawn. During the implementation phase of RCV, election cycles in RCV cities were found to be more expensive on average compared to before the implementation. RCV cities experienced a larger magnitude of average election expense increase compared to control cities. This suggests that the initial implementation of RCV entails additional costs that need to be considered. The study indicates that ongoing costs of RCV elections after implementation are significantly higher compared to control cities. This finding suggests that RCV cities consistently incur higher costs in conducting elections even after the initial implementation phase. These findings raise important concerns about the cost-effectiveness of RCV as a voting system. While RCV may offer certain advantages the study's findings suggest that these benefits may be outweighed by the increased financial burden associated with RCV. It is crucial to critically evaluate the financial implications of implementing RCV, particularly considering the burden it places on the ballot counting process, the need for expensive voter education campaigns, and the potential for disenfranchisement of vulnerable populations. RCV may have potential benefits, the study's findings suggest that the costs and drawbacks of RCV outweigh its advantages in terms of cost-effectiveness. Therefore, policymakers and election administrators should carefully consider the financial implications before implementing RCV in their jurisdictions.
Information Cost Increase
The consideration of ranked choice voting at the city level in San Diego was rejected due to the perceived risks of confusing voters, increased election costs, and potential unintended consequences. Additionally, a researcher argues that the information costs of implementing ranked-choice voting would be higher compared to traditional elections, emphasizing the expenses involved in educating voters about the intricacies of the ranked-choice voting process. These findings suggest that ranked-choice voting may not offer a more cost-effective alternative to traditional elections, particularly when accounting for the substantial investment required in voter education. As further research and exploration of ranked-choice voting continue, careful consideration of its potential costs and benefits is crucial in determining its viability as a voting system.
How Ranked Choice Voting Impacts Election Costs: A Comparative Analysis
The study collected election cost data from seven local governments that adopted RCV between 2004 and 2011. Similar data were obtained from seven control municipalities that used traditional voting methods. The selection of control municipalities was based on similarities in population, budget size, location, election cycle schedule, jurisdiction in charge of elections, and political makeup. Election costs were aggregated into standard two-year cycles and converted into per-capita costs for comparison.
Results:
The analysis focused on three categories: before, during, and after RCV implementation. Difference-in-difference regressions were conducted to identify any cost changes during and after RCV implementation. The study found that cost differences during and after RCV implementation were not statistically significant, indicating that RCV had no direct effect on the cost of elections. However, RCV jurisdictions were found to have significantly higher overall election costs compared to control cities.
Why?
RCV introduces challenges and expenses. The convoluted elimination rounds can burden the ballot counting process, and extensive voter education campaigns are required to familiarize voters with RCV. Moreover, RCV may disproportionately impact vulnerable populations and increase the potential for election irregularities.
The study concludes that while RCV does not directly impact the cost of elections during or after implementation, RCV jurisdictions consistently experience higher overall election costs compared to control cities. This suggests that the supposed cost-effectiveness of RCV needs critical evaluation. The burden placed on the ballot counting process, the expense of voter education campaigns, and the potential disenfranchisement of vulnerable populations raise concerns about the cost-benefit balance of RCV. Policymakers and election administrators should carefully consider the financial implications before implementing RCV, ensuring a comprehensive understanding of its costs and drawbacks. Continued research and informed decision-making are essential to ensure the integrity and efficiency of the democratic process.
http://alaskapolicyforum.org/wp-content/uploads/2020-10-APF-Ranked-Choice-Voting-Report.pdf
https://esra.wisc.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/1556/2020/11/rhode.pdf
https://electionlab.mit.edu/articles/cost-ranked-choice-voting