Americans for Faithful Elections empowers candidates and citizens alike by providing essential support in drafting and leading petitions. By fostering a grassroots community, we lay a solid foundation for future initiatives and positive change.

They Claim It Increases Turnout, Does It?

Claims that ranked-choice voting (RCV) increases voter turnout should be met with skepticism, as evidence suggests the opposite effect. Several examples and studies provide support for this observation. Cities such as Minneapolis and St. Paul, which have implemented RCV in local elections for a significant period, have consistently experienced lower voter turnout compared to other major metropolitan areas. Similarly, an analysis of San Francisco's elections over a 16-year period revealed a correlation between the adoption of RCV and a decline in voter participation. Moreover, jurisdictions utilizing RCV in odd or off-cycle election years consistently report an eight percent lower turnout compared to non-RCV jurisdictions. These findings challenge the notion that RCV positively impacts voter engagement.

The complexity of the RCV system compared to traditional voting methods can discourage new and infrequent voters from participating. Factors such as voter confusion, high rates of ballot exhaustion (when a ballot is invalidated due to incomplete rankings), and the complexity of tabulating results contribute to higher opportunity costs associated with RCV.

Additionally, specific examples further highlight the potential impact of RCV on voter turnout:

1. Burlington, Vermont: Despite implementing RCV for mayoral elections since 2006, Burlington has experienced instances of relatively low voter turnout in certain election years, such as the 2012 mayoral election.

2. San Francisco, California: While there have been cases of increased turnout with RCV in San Francisco, there have also been instances where voter participation remained low, as seen in the 2011 mayoral election.

3. Minneapolis, Minnesota: Although there was an initial increase in turnout during the first year of RCV implementation in 2009, subsequent elections in Minneapolis have shown mixed results, with some years experiencing relatively low voter participation despite using RCV.

These examples demonstrate that RCV implementation does not guarantee higher voter turnout and may, in some cases, be associated with lower participation rates.

Ranked-choice voting (RCV) has been implemented in various jurisdictions, aiming to improve the democratic process. However, concerns have been raised about the potential impact of RCV on voter turnout. This section examines the relationship between RCV and voter participation, supported by examples and studies. Additionally, we will explore specific instances where RCV implementation did not result in increased voter turnout.

1. Lower Voter Turnout in RCV Districts:

Several examples and studies indicate that districts using RCV have experienced lower voter turnout compared to traditional voting systems. This suggests that the adoption of RCV may not necessarily lead to increased voter participation.

1.1 Minneapolis and St. Paul, Minnesota:

Both cities have employed RCV in local elections for over a decade. However, studies show that they "lag well behind other major metropolitan cities in municipal election voter turnout." This indicates that RCV implementation in these cities has not resulted in increased voter participation.

1.2 San Francisco, California:

A study analyzing San Francisco elections from 1995 to 2011 revealed a strong correlation between the adoption of RCV and a decline in voter turnout. While there have been instances of increased turnout in certain elections, there have also been cases where turnout remained low, such as the 2011 mayoral election.

1.3 Odd or Off-Cycle Election Years:

On average, jurisdictions using RCV in odd or off-cycle election years experience an eight percent lower voter turnout compared to non-RCV jurisdictions. This consistent pattern suggests that RCV may contribute to decreased participation in these elections.

2. Factors Contributing to Decreased Turnout with RCV:

The complexity of the RCV system compared to traditional voting methods can discourage new and infrequent voters from participating. Factors such as voter confusion, high rates of ballot exhaustion, and the complexity of tabulating results contribute to higher opportunity costs associated with RCV.

3. Specific Examples Highlighting RCV's Impact on Turnout:

Specific instances further emphasize the potential impact of RCV on voter participation.

3.1 Burlington, Vermont:

Despite implementing RCV for mayoral elections since 2006, Burlington has experienced instances of relatively low voter turnout in certain election years, such as the 2012 mayoral election.

3.2 San Francisco, California:

While there have been cases of increased turnout with RCV in San Francisco, there have also been instances where voter participation remained low, as seen in the 2011 mayoral election.

3.3 Minneapolis, Minnesota:

Although there was an initial increase in turnout during the first year of RCV implementation in 2009, subsequent elections in Minneapolis have shown mixed results, with some years experiencing relatively low voter participation despite using RCV.

4. Alaska's Lowest Voter Turnout in History:

Alaska experienced the lowest voter turnout in the history of the state, with a participation rate of only 44% in November 2022. While multiple factors contribute to historic voter turnout, it is worth noting that the Alaska Division of Elections invested significant resources in voter education and outreach. While not claiming RCV as the sole cause, it is essential to consider the broader impact of RCV and the concerns it has raised in other cities.

The evidence suggests that RCV implementation does not guarantee higher voter turnout and, in some cases, may be associated with lower participation rates. Combined with the issues observed in other jurisdictions, the case against ranked-choice voting becomes more compelling. Leaders from both the left and right have expressed reservations about RCV, emphasizing the need for further evaluation and consideration of its impact on the

Voter Participation with Ranked Choice Voting in the United States

Authors: David C. Kimball, Joseph Anthony

This research study compares the voter turnout and participation in elections using ranked choice voting (RCV) and plurality voting systems in the United States. The authors conducted a difference-in-differences analysis, matching cities that implemented RCV with demographically similar cities that used plurality voting on the same dates. RCV does not have a significant impact on overall voter turnout and ballot completion in municipal elections.

The authors acknowledge that there are claims and debates about the merits and drawbacks of RCV as more jurisdictions in the United States consider adopting it. While some claim that RCV can reinvigorate elections by fostering more collaboration, providing a more complete expression of voter preferences, and reducing negative campaigning, others raise concerns about the complexity of ranking candidates and potential disparities in understanding the voting system. Previous research has shown mixed evidence on the impact of RCV on voter participation.

The study highlights the RCV effects on overall turnout and ballot completion in local elections are limited. It emphasizes the importance of evaluating RCV alongside the plurality system it typically replaces in the United States. The findings contribute to the ongoing discussions surrounding RCV and its potential implications for voter engagement in American elections.

Data and Methods:

To assess the impact of Ranked-Choice Voting (RCV) on voter participation, this study adopts a research design similar to Bowler, Donovan, and Brockington (2003) in their study of cumulative voting. The study compares a "treatment" group of cities that have adopted RCV to a "control" group of cities using plurality voting.

The study examines recent elections through the 2015 cycle for both sets of cities, as well as the last election or two prior to the adoption of RCV. Elections held in 2012 and other years coinciding with a presidential contest are excluded because voter participation in presidential years is influenced by the presidential campaign and tends to be higher than turnout in local elections in other years. Data for Cambridge, Massachusetts, and its matching plurality cities before the adoption of RCV are not included since Cambridge adopted RCV in the 1940s. The study still examines both sets of cities for the 2009, 2013, and 2015 elections. Similarly, data for Portland, Maine, and its matching cities prior to 2011 are not included because Portland had not elected a mayor since the 1920s and adopted RCV in 2011. Both sets of cities are examined for the 2011 and 2015 elections.

Voter turnout, defined as the percentage of eligible voters who cast a ballot, is a commonly used measure of participation. The number of ballots cast is collected from city and county election offices. The number of eligible voters in each city is estimated based on the Census Bureau's American Community Survey (ACS), which provides five-year average population estimates for American municipalities. The most recently released estimate for the citizen voting age population (CVAP) in 2013, 2014, and 2015 is used, while earlier years utilize the five-year average centered on the year the election was held.

Turnout is examined in local primary, general, and runoff elections. Plurality systems typically involve a primary election and a runoff election to choose local officials. The top candidates from the primary election, usually the top two, advance to the runoff election, where the winner secures the office. In RCV systems, which allow voters to rank candidates in order of preference.

Results from Minneapolis: Socioeconomic Bias in Voter Participation

RCV fails to ameliorate socioeconomic biases in participation (Jacobs and Miller 2013, 2014; Neely and McDaniel 2015; McDaniel 2016). For American voters who have grown accustomed to plurality voting, properly casting an RCV ballot may take some learning and skill, which may confer a participatory advantage on voters with more resources (i.e., wealth, education, and civic skills). In a recent we, Jacobs and Miller (2014) report on the 2013 Minneapolis election, noting higher rates of voter participation in white and high-income wards.

The evidence suggests that districts using ranked-choice voting (RCV) have experienced lower voter turnout compared to traditional voting systems. Examples from cities like Minneapolis, St. Paul, and San Francisco, as well as studies analyzing odd or off-cycle election years, consistently show a correlation between RCV implementation and decreased participation rates. Factors such as the complexity of the RCV system, voter confusion, high rates of ballot exhaustion, and the intricacies of tabulating results contribute to higher opportunity costs associated with RCV.

Specific instances in Burlington, Vermont, San Francisco, California, and Minneapolis, Minnesota, further highlight that RCV implementation does not guarantee increased voter turnout. Despite adopting RCV, these cities have experienced mixed results, with some election years showing relatively low voter participation.

It is worth noting that Alaska's historic low voter turnout in 2022, while not solely attributed to RCV, highlights the broader impact and concerns associated with the system.

A report on the 2011 San Francisco Municipal Election examined the usage of ranked-choice voting (RCV) and found that precincts with higher proportions of Asian and Pacific Islander, Latino, and older voters, as well as more progressive precincts, were more likely to have ballots containing overvotes. Moreover, precincts with higher concentrations of older, moderate, Latino, and Asian and Pacific Islander voters tended to vote for only one candidate instead of ranking multiple preferences. In the 2022 Oakland, CA Mayoral election, incorrect instructions on RCV ballots caused confusion, leading to added challenges in the election process. Furthermore, a significant number of ballots (3.5%) were overvoted, with varying rates across different precincts, aligning with the demographic division of Oakland.

The implementation of RCV in precincts is closely correlated with demographic factors. Low-income and predominantly non-white precincts face challenges with RCV, resulting in higher rates of disenfranchisement compared to high-income, predominantly white precincts. Overvoting, along with other error types such as duplicate candidates and skipped ranks, poses significant issues in RCV ballots. Some precincts experience error rates as high as 23%, affecting one in four voters.

These findings highlight the challenges and discrepancies associated with ranked-choice voting. Concerns about overvoting, undervoting, and demographic disparities in ballot errors call for a closer examination of the system's effectiveness and fairness. Several Democrat governors, including Governor Gavin Newsom of California, former Governor Jerry Brown, Governor Charlie Baker of Massachusetts, and Governor Steve Sisolak of Nevada, have expressed concerns about voter confusion and the complexity of ranked-choice voting. Their viewpoints emphasize the importance of further exploration, analysis, and education to ensure a fair and reliable voting system.

Studies and examples from Minneapolis, St. Paul, San Francisco, and odd or off-cycle election years suggest that districts using RCV have lower voter turnout rates compared to traditional voting systems. The complexity of the RCV system, including factors such as voter confusion, high rates of ballot exhaustion, and the complexity of tabulating results, can discourage new and infrequent voters from participating. Specific examples from Burlington, San Francisco, and Minneapolis further highlight the potential impact of RCV on voter turnout, showing mixed results and instances of low participation despite using RCV.

There is a research study comparing RCV and plurality voting systems in the United States found that RCV does not have a significant impact on overall voter turnout and ballot completion in municipal elections. The evidence suggests that RCV implementation does not guarantee higher voter turnout and may, in some cases, be associated with lower participation rates. The complexity of the system and concerns about disparities and errors in RCV ballots raise important considerations for the fairness and effectiveness of ranked-choice voting.

Potential Bias

One potential bias associated with RCV was identified in the study. Older people in RCV cities were less likely to report understanding voting instructions and RCV elections, indicating a potential age-related bias.

The adoption of complex voting systems like RCV can lead to confusion and increased voting errors. While the study mainly focuses on how voters recalled ballot instructions shortly after voting, it acknowledges that concerns about information demands and potential voting errors associated with RCV should not be dismissed. Researchers need to continue examining evidence of bias, particularly racial and ethnic bias, associated with such voting systems.

The study suggests that reported understanding of voting instructions and election systems is associated with education, indicating that voter education campaigns may play a role in increasing understanding of RCV and reducing potential voting errors.

It is important to note that the study's method of measuring reported understanding has limitations, as it cannot observe actual voted ballots or link them to specific voters. It is possible that some respondents cast invalid RCV ballots but still reported understanding the voting instructions and RCV. If the propensity to commit voting errors and report understanding is concentrated among racial and ethnic minorities, the study's findings may underestimate the potential racial and ethnic bias in understanding RCV.

Districts using ranked-choice voting have lower voter turnout rates

Implementing RCV lowers voter turnout rates. For example, both Minneapolis and St. Paul, Minnesota, have run local elections using RCV for more than a decade, and both “lag well behind other major metropolitan cities in municipal election voter turnout.”15-17

In fact, comparatively lower voter turnout in jurisdictions using RCV is a consistent pattern. A study of San Francisco elections from 1995 to 2011 revealed a strong relationship between a decline in voter turnout and the adoption of RCV.18 Furthermore, during odd or off-cycle election years, RCV jurisdictions have on average eight percent lower voter turnout rates than non-RCV jurisdictions.19

Because RCV is more complex than traditional voting, the system inherently discourages new and infrequent voters from participating.20 Between voter confusion, high rates of ballot exhaustion, and the difficulty of tabulating the results, RCV increases the opportunity costs of electoral participation.

Alaska Policy Forum Summary:

Ranked-Choice Voting (RCV) has the potential to impact voter turnout, which is an important metric for evaluating the performance of a voting system. Voter turnout in the United States is generally low compared to international standards. In the 2018 midterm elections, only 50.3% of eligible voters nationwide cast a ballot.

Proponents argue that RCV could improve voter participation by making voters feel that their voice has a greater impact on the election outcome. However, others believe that RCV could discourage voters who are confused about how to vote or who feel uninformed about the candidates. The complexity of the ballot in RCV could also make it harder for voters to understand the connection between their votes and government policies.

Empirical evidence on the impact of RCV on voter turnout is mixed. Some studies show that RCV slightly depresses turnout compared to plurality elections. However, the limited sample size of jurisdictions implementing RCV in the US and the difficulty of isolating other variables that influence turnout make it challenging to draw definitive conclusions.

A study of four cities in California found that voter turnout remained stable after adopting RCV. On the other hand, the ACLU testified to the Kansas Special Committee on Elections that RCV has suppressed voter turnout, particularly among segments of the electorate that are already less likely to participate.

Proponents of RCV point to an analysis commissioned by FairVote, which suggests that RCV is associated with a 10-point increase in voter turnout compared to primary and run-off elections. However, this increase may be due to the compression of voting and the reduction of candidates into a single election, rather than the direct impact of RCV on turnout. Overall, the study indicates that RCV has minimal effects on voter participation rates.

A study of San Francisco's election data found that RCV led to a decline in turnout among African American and white voters, exacerbating disparities between likely and unlikely voters. This was attributed, in part, to the increased information costs of voting under RCV, which discouraged low-propensity voters.

Due to the ongoing debate and varying findings, it is not responsible to make definitive claims about whether RCV actually increases turnout compared to plurality elections. Further research and analysis are necessary to fully understand the relationship between RCV and voter participation.

https://www.umsl.edu/~kimballd/KimballRCV.pdf

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/ssqu.12651

https://thefga.org/research/ranked-choice-voting-a-disaster-in-disguise/