IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cog/poango/v9y2021i2p293-305.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Joseph A. Coll

    (Department of Political Science, University of Iowa, USA)

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Joseph A. Coll, 2021. "Demographic Disparities Using Ranked-Choice Voting? Ranking Difficulty, Under-Voting, and the 2020 Democratic Primary," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 9(2), pages 293-305.
  • Handle: RePEc:cog:poango:v:9:y:2021:i:2:p:293-305
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cogitatiopress.com/politicsandgovernance/article/view/3913
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Karpowitz, Christopher F. & Pope, Jeremy C., 2015. "Who Caucuses? An Experimental Approach to Institutional Design and Electoral Participation," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 45(2), pages 329-351, April.
    2. David C. Kimball & Martha Kropf, 2016. "Voter Competence with Cumulative Voting," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 97(3), pages 619-635, September.
    3. Todd Donovan & Caroline Tolbert & Kellen Gracey, 2019. "Self‐Reported Understanding of Ranked‐Choice Voting," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 100(5), pages 1768-1776, August.
    4. Knack, Stephen & Kropf, Martha, 2003. "Voided Ballot in the 1996 Presidential Election: A County-Level Analysis," MPRA Paper 24895, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. Michael Tomz & Robert P. Van Houweling, 2003. "How Does Voting Equipment Affect the Racial Gap in Voided Ballots?," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 47(1), pages 46-60, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Kiran Tomlinson & Johan Ugander & Jon Kleinberg, 2022. "Ballot Length in Instant Runoff Voting," Papers 2207.08958, arXiv.org, revised Dec 2022.
    2. Adam Graham-Squire & David McCune, 2023. "An Examination of Ranked Choice Voting in the United States, 2004-2022," Papers 2301.12075, arXiv.org, revised Mar 2023.
    3. David McCune & Jennifer Wilson, 2023. "Ranked-choice voting and the spoiler effect," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 196(1), pages 19-50, July.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Courtney L. Juelich & Joseph A. Coll, 2021. "Ranked Choice Voting and Youth Voter Turnout: The Roles of Campaign Civility and Candidate Contact," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 9(2), pages 319-331.
    2. Kelly Shue & Erzo F. P. Luttmer, 2009. "Who Misvotes? The Effect of Differential Cognition Costs on Election Outcomes," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 1(1), pages 229-257, February.
    3. Allers, M. & Kooreman, P., 2009. "More evidence on the effects of voting technology on election outcomes," Other publications TiSEM 76b3f561-a37f-4a29-bfd9-0, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    4. Philip Keefer & Christopher Kilby, 2021. "Introduction to the special issue: In memoriam Stephen Knack," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 16(3), pages 473-493, July.
    5. J. Andrew Harris & Catherine Kamindo & Peter van der Windt, 2020. "Electoral Administration in Fledgling Democracies:Experimental Evidence from Kenya," Working Papers 20200036, New York University Abu Dhabi, Department of Social Science, revised Jan 2020.
    6. John Lott, 2009. "Non-voted ballots, the cost of voting, and race," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 138(1), pages 171-197, January.
    7. Aldashev, Gani & Mastrobuoni, Giovanni, 2019. "Invalid Ballots and Electoral Competition," Political Science Research and Methods, Cambridge University Press, vol. 7(2), pages 289-310, April.
    8. Baodong Liu, 2007. "EI Extended Model and the Fear of Ecological Fallacy," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 36(1), pages 3-25, August.
    9. Matt Lamb & Steven Perry, 2020. "Knowing What You Don't Know: The Role of Information and Sophistication in Ballot Completion," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 101(3), pages 1132-1149, May.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cog:poango:v:9:y:2021:i:2:p:293-305. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: António Vieira (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cogitatiopress.com/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.