Demographic Disparities Using Ranked-Choice Voting? Ranking Difficulty, Under-Voting, and the 2020 Democratic Primary

Abstract

Ranked choice voting (RCV) has become increasingly popular in recent years, as more jurisdictions in the US adopt the voting system for local, state, and federal elections. Though previous studies have found potential benefits of RCV, some evidence suggests ranking multiple candidates instead of choosing one most preferred candidate may be difficult, with potential demographic disparities linked to age, gender, or racial or ethnic identity. Further, these difficulties have been assumed to cause individuals to improperly fill out RCV ballots, such as ranking too many or not enough candidates. This study seeks to answer three interrelated questions: 1) Which demographic groups find it difficult to rank candidates in RCV elections? 2) Who is more likely to cast under-voted ballots (not ranking all candidates)? 3) Is there a relationship between finding RCV voting difficult and the likelihood of casting an under-voted ballot? Using unique national survey data of 2020 Democratic primary candidate preferences, the results indicate most respondents find ranking candidates easy, but older, less interested, and more ideologically conservative individuals find it more difficult. In a hypothetical ranking of primary candidates, 12% of respondents under-voted (did not rank all options). Despite their perceived increased difficulty, older individuals were less likely to under-vote their ballot. No other demographic groups consistently experienced systematic differences in ranking difficulty or under-voting across a series of model specifications. These findings support previous evidence of older voters having increased difficulty, but challenge research assuming difficulty leads to under-voting, and that racial and ethnic groups are disadvantaged by RCV.

Ranked-Choice Voting and the Potential for Improved Electoral Performance of Third-Party Candidates in America

“…While largely limited to local elections, previous research into RCV in the U.S. demonstrates a number of useful findings for understanding the outcomes produced by RCV. Research on those voters experienced in, or familiar with, RCV tend to reveal high levels of understanding and satisfaction with the voting system (e.g., Cerrone & McClintock, 2021;Coll, 2021;Mauter, 2014;Neely et al, 2005;2006). Researchers find that in local elections RCV increases elected officials who are racial minorities, women, or both (Buckley et al, 2015;Burnham 1997Burnham , 2013Engstrom, 1990;Hirczy, 1995;John et al, 2018;McGing, 2013).…”

“…While research on RCV in US elections has largely focused on local, non-partisan, elections, there are three notable projects that explore RCV in non-local elections. Coll (2021) utilizes a national survey of likely Democratic primary voters to explore issues around ballot exhaustion and understanding of RCV. Overall, according to this study, Democratic primary voters find RCV ballots easy to complete, with about 12% of voters suffering from "ballot exhaustion".…”

Demographic differences in understanding and utilization of ranked choice voting

“…McCarthy and Santucci (2021) document that opinion surveys regularly find younger voters more supportive of RCV. Survey research by Donovan, Tolbert and Gracey (2019) and Coll (2021), likewise, found older respondents less likely to report understanding RCV well, and less likely to report ranking as many candidates as younger respondents (Coll 2021). Surveys conducted by and Neely, Cook and Blash (2006) found no clear relationship between age and reported understanding, while found younger voters more likely to use all available rankings.…”

Ballot Length in Instant Runoff Voting

“…In political science, voluntary truncation is also referred to as under-voting [30]. Several studies have asked whether different demographic groups are more likely to under-vote and how this could have a disenfranchising effect [30,12]. Along these lines, a simulation study found that if a minority group truncates their ballots more than a majority group, this can disproportionately hurt the minority [20].…”

“…Overall, 25% of the elections were sensitive to ballot length. Among the 85 elections with ballot length h ≤ 5, 14% (12) of them had two different truncation winners. In order to better understand the landscape of possible outcomes in each election, we also performed resampling of ballots.…”