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 RCV is more Civil

Based on the findings of the study examining the impact of ranked-choice voting (RCV) on campaigns and civility, states should approach the implementation of RCV with caution. One of the main claims made by RCV reformers is that it will promote more civil campaigns by incentivizing candidates to seek the second-place votes of supporters of different candidates. However, the research conducted raises doubts about this claim.

The study analyzed independent expenditures for and against candidates using a difference-in-differences analysis. The results showed a significant increase in negative spending in Maine after the implementation of RCV. This finding challenges the notion that RCV leads to more civil campaigns.

To provide further evidence, the study examined a dataset of Facebook advertisements mentioning congressional candidates in Maine during the first year RCV was used (2018). A sentiment analysis was conducted to determine the sentiment of each advertisement, particularly whether it was negative or not. Through genetic matching, an approximation of an experiment was performed to assess the impact of RCV on civility. Surprisingly, the analysis revealed that the 2018 campaign in Maine was even more negative compared to paired districts around the country.

These findings suggest that the implementation of RCV may not necessarily lead to more civil campaigns as claimed by reformers. Instead, the study indicates a potential increase in negative campaigning following the adoption of RCV. Therefore, states should be skeptical about the impact of RCV on campaigns and carefully consider these research findings before deciding to implement RCV.

More evidence in Maine:

In Maine's 2018 gubernatorial primaries, there was a significant increase in independent expenditures compared to previous primary elections. Independent expenditures refer to spending by third-party groups not affiliated with a specific candidate or party. In 2018, $207,500 was spent opposing specific candidates, while $146,775 was spent supporting candidates.

This increase in independent expenditures is noteworthy because there were no independent expenditures opposing candidates in the 2006, 2010, and 2014 gubernatorial primaries. The 2018 election was similar to the 2010 election in terms of having a large field of candidates and an open seat due to the incumbent being term-limited.

In terms of fundraising, candidate Adam Cote had raised over $1 million in the 2018 Democratic primary, while candidate Janet Mills had raised around $792,000 before June 12, 2018. Rather than attacking Cote directly, Mills may have allowed third-party groups to launch attacks against him to avoid tarnishing her own image in the eyes of Cote supporters. One such attack came from Maine Women Together, which spent $192,500 to attack Cote for his past Republican affiliation and accepting corporate donations.

In Maine's 2018 Second Congressional District election:

Which was the first general election in Maine to implement Ranked-Choice Voting (RCV), there was a significant increase in independent expenditures compared to previous elections. Approximately $11.52 million was spent through independent expenditures opposing a candidate in 2018, a 24% increase from 2016.

When comparing opposition expenditures in non-presidential elections (2014 and 2018), there was a substantial 341% increase. In 2014, only $2.91 million was spent on independent expenditures opposing a candidate.

This data suggests that ranked-choice voting may not effectively reduce negative campaigning, as it casts doubts on the claim that RCV improves the tone and civility of political races. However, it is important to note that this analysis does not provide conclusive evidence regarding the impact of ranked-choice voting on negative campaigning. Further research may be needed to draw definitive conclusions.

Alaskan Experience:

Based on our analysis of the same parameters, we have observed a significant increase in negativity during the 2022 election compared to traditional Plurality voting. Negative campaigning against two Republicans persisted from the early stages of the Special Primary in April 2022 until November 2022. The absence of a closed party primary allowed more time for the two Republicans to attack each other rather than focusing on criticizing the opposing party. In fact, one of the Republican candidates even endorsed the Democrat as their second choice in the U.S. House Election, primarily due to the negative campaign ads and targeting from the other Republican candidate.

Another noteworthy finding is the substantial increase in campaign expenditures supporting Lisa Murkowski compared to previous elections. Supporters of Nick Begich spent over $1.7 million on advertising in Alaska, which is significantly higher than usual. Normally, the Republicans would have had a single candidate advancing to the general election. However, due to the presence of two Republican candidates, a substantial portion of the campaign funds was directed towards attacking fellow Republicans in both the Special Primary and General, as well as the Regular Primary and General elections. (2022 in Alaska due to Ranked Choice Voting had 4 elections spanning early spring through November, brings a whole new meaning to the term exhausted.)

It is worth mentioning that the Democrat was the sole candidate on the ticket. However, according to the law in the Special General, the Division of Elections in Alaska should have retained Al Gross's name on the ballot, which could have potentially resulted in different outcomes.

These findings highlight the intensification of negativity in the 2022 election and the significant impact it had on campaign dynamics and expenditures. The presence of multiple Republican candidates, coupled with aggressive attacks within the party, diverted resources and influenced the overall electoral landscape.

Throughout the 2022 election season running for Alaska’s sole U.S. House of Representatives seat. Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin had this to say about her experience with Rank Choice Voting and her thoughts on the claims that Rank Choice Voting is more civil considering her experience with elections and poor treatment by national media for decades. Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin criticized ranked-choice voting, referring to it as a "new crazy, convoluted, confusing" way to elect lawmakers that she believes has disenfranchised 60% of Alaska voters. In a statement, Palin argued that ranked-choice voting was originally presented as a method to improve the representation of the people's will in elections but has instead produced the opposite effect. She expressed hope that Alaskans would learn from this voting system mistake and rectify it in the next election.

U.S. Senator Tom Cotton also weighed in on the Alaska experience with ranked-choice voting, highlighting that although 60% of Alaska voters supported a Republican candidate, the convoluted process and ballot exhaustion resulted in a Democrat winning, which he viewed as a form of voter disenfranchisement.

In the special Open Primary election in Alaska, the intial results showed that only 10.1% of the vote went to Peltola, 27% to Palin, and 19.1% to Republican Nick Begich, Al Gross placed in 3rd with 12.6%. In this race since it was an open primary we combined all the votes for a Republican, including candidates that did not make the Top 4 General. Combining Palin (27%), Begich (19.1%), Sweeney (5.9%), Coghill (2.4%), and Revak (2.3%) we get 56.7%.

Please note that Al Gross was removed from the ballot after dropping out, please see Alaska section to explain the Supreme Court’s ruling on this matter.

This same pattern repeated itself in the Special Top 4 General, (Palin 31.3%, Begich 28.5%, Peltola 40.2%) Republican total vote 59.8%, Regular Primary (Palin 30.2%, Begich 26.2%, Peltola 36.8%, Sweeney 3.8%) Total Republican vote 61% including candidates that did not make the Top 4 General, and Regular Top 4 General (Palin 25.8%, Begich 23.6%, Peltola 48.7%, Bye 1.9%) Total Republican vote 49.4%. Though closer than the Special Primary, Special General, and Regular Primary, the turnout by percentage was the lowest in history. I personally voted in the Special Primary through the Regular Primary, but I did not vote in the Regular General Election, primarily because I felt I already knew the result and partly due to voter exhaustion.

Throughout these 4 elections the two top Republican candidates spent more time and money attacking each other than they did attacking the Democrat in the race. The claim that Rank Choice Voting is more civil should be questioned considering Alaska and Maine’s examples that we address in this book.

Looking at Alaska again and looking at the Lisa Murkowski and Kelly Tshibaka race we see that the same pattern of Republicans attacking Republicans is also featured prominently in this race. From the early part of 2022 throughout the year Kelly Tshibaka and Lisa Murkowski were attacking each other, which is quite normal for most elections, though in 2022 due to the Open Primary and Rank Choice Top 4 General Election, the attacks against fellow Republicans, which would normally end when the Closed Republican Primary was over, continued after August, all the way until Election day in November. The negative campaign ads were mostly directed from one Republican to another Republican, considering in this race the Democrat only received 10.7% of the total General Election votes, we are surprised that so many Democrats support Rank Choice Voting in Alaska. This was the worst performance by a Democrat in a U.S. Senate Election in all of Alaska’s recorded history. In the 2020 U.S. Senate Election 41.2% voted for a Democrat and 53.9% voted for a Republican. In 2022, 89.3% voted for a Republican and only 10.7% voted for a Democrat. In 2 years, Alaska’s GOP was able to get 30.5% of the Democrat Voters to vote for a Republican, pretty amazing. This calls into question the claim that Rank Choice Voting can not be gamed. This looks like pretty obvious gaming in this authors opinion.

If gaming or manipulating the electoral system is possible in elections, it can have several effects on voters:

1. Disillusionment: When voters perceive that the electoral system can be gamed or manipulated, it can lead to a sense of disillusionment and loss of faith in the democratic process. They may feel that their votes don't truly matter if the system can be manipulated to produce predetermined outcomes.

2. Strategic voting: The possibility of gaming elections can lead to strategic voting, where voters may not necessarily vote for their preferred candidate but instead vote strategically to prevent certain outcomes or manipulate the system themselves. This can distort the true expression of voters' preferences.

3. Voter suppression: If voters believe that the electoral system is vulnerable to gaming, it may discourage some individuals from participating in the electoral process altogether. They may feel that their votes will not have an impact or that the system is rigged against them, leading to reduced voter turnout and potentially disenfranchising certain groups.

4. Weakening of democracy: If the electoral system can be easily gamed, it undermines the principles of fairness, transparency, and equal representation that are crucial to a healthy democracy. This can erode trust in democratic institutions and lead to a decline in overall democratic governance.

It is important for electoral systems to be designed in a way that minimizes the potential for gaming or manipulation, ensuring that the voice of the voters is accurately reflected and their confidence in the democratic process is maintained.

https://electionlab.mit.edu/articles/effect-ranked-choice-voting-maine

http://alaskapolicyforum.org/wp-content/uploads/2020-10-APF-Ranked-Choice-Voting-Report.pdf

https://alaskapolicyforum.org/wp-content/uploads/2020-10-APF-Ranked-Choice-Voting-Report.pdf