IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2602.21504.html

Can ranked-choice voting elect the least popular candidate?

Author

Listed:
  • David McCune
  • Jennifer Wilson

Abstract

We analyze how frequently instant runoff voting (IRV) selects the weakest (or least popular) candidate in three-candidate elections. We consider four definitions of ``weakest candidate'': the Borda loser, the Bucklin loser, the candidate with the most last-place votes, and the candidate with minimum social utility. We determine the probability that IRV selects the weakest candidate under the impartial anonymous culture and impartial culture models of voter behavior, and use Monte Carlo simulations to estimate these probabilities under several spatial models. We also examine this question empirically using a large dataset of real elections. Our results show that IRV can select the weakest candidates under each of these definitions, but such outcomes are generally rare. Across most models, the probability that IRV elects a given type of weakest candidate is at most 5\%. Larger probabilities arise only when the electorate is extremely polarized.

Suggested Citation

  • David McCune & Jennifer Wilson, 2026. "Can ranked-choice voting elect the least popular candidate?," Papers 2602.21504, arXiv.org.
    • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2602.21504
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/2602.21504
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. N. Bradley Fox & Benjamin Bruyns, 2024. "An Evaluation of Borda Count Variations Using Ranked Choice Voting Data," Papers 2501.00618, arXiv.org, revised Jan 2025.
    2. Adam Graham-Squire & Matthew I. Jones & David McCune, 2024. "New fairness criteria for truncated ballots in multi-winner ranked-choice elections," Papers 2408.03926, arXiv.org.
    3. Robbie Robinette, 2023. "Implications of strategic position choices by candidates," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 34(3), pages 445-457, September.
    4. Kamwa, Eric & Merlin, Vincent, 2015. "Scoring rules over subsets of alternatives: Consistency and paradoxes," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 130-138.
    5. Ross Hyman & Deb Otis & Seamus Allen & Greg Dennis, 2024. "A majority rule philosophy for instant runoff voting," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 35(3), pages 425-436, September.
    6. Donald G. Saari & Maria M. Tataru, 1999. "The likelihood of dubious election outcomes," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 13(2), pages 345-363.
    7. Lepelley, Dominique, 1993. "On the probability of electing the Condorcet," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 25(2), pages 105-116, February.
    8. Ross Hyman & Deb Otis & Seamus Allen & Greg Dennis, 2023. "A Majority Rule Philosophy for Instant Runoff Voting," Papers 2308.08430, arXiv.org, revised Mar 2024.
    9. Nurmi, Hannu & Uusi-Heikkila, Yrjo, 1986. "Computer simulations of approval and plurality voting: The frequency of weak pareto violations and condorcet loser choices in impartial cultures," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 2(1), pages 47-59.
    10. Nicholas R. Miller, 2017. "Closeness matters: monotonicity failure in IRV elections with three candidates," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 173(1), pages 91-108, October.
    11. Chang Geun Song, 2023. "What difference does a voting rule make?," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 34(3), pages 275-285, September.
    12. H. Moulin, 1980. "On strategy-proofness and single peakedness," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 35(4), pages 437-455, January.
    13. Florenz Plassmann & T. Tideman, 2014. "How frequently do different voting rules encounter voting paradoxes in three-candidate elections?," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 42(1), pages 31-75, January.
    14. Williams Gehrlein, 1993. "Condorcet efficiency of two stage constant scoring rules," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 27(1), pages 95-101, February.
    15. 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.
    16. Gehrlein, William V. & Lepelley, Dominique, 1998. "The Condorcet efficiency of approval voting and the probability of electing the Condorcet loser," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 271-283, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Mostapha Diss & Eric Kamwa & Abdelmonaim Tlidi, 2019. "On some k-scoring rules for committee elections: agreement and Condorcet Principle," Working Papers hal-02147735, HAL.
    2. Mostapha Diss & Eric Kamwa & Abdelmonaim Tlidi, 2020. "On Some k -scoring Rules for Committee Elections: Agreement and Condorcet Principle," Revue d'économie politique, Dalloz, vol. 130(5), pages 699-725.
    3. David McCune & Jennifer Wilson, 2025. "The negative participation paradox in three-candidate instant runoff elections," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 98(4), pages 537-559, June.
    4. Eric Kamwa, 2018. "On the Likelihood of the Borda Effect: The Overall Probabilities for General Weighted Scoring Rules and Scoring Runoff Rules," Working Papers hal-01786590, HAL.
    5. Eric Kamwa, 2023. "On two voting systems that combine approval and preferences: fallback voting and preference approval voting," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 196(1), pages 169-205, July.
    6. Gehrlein, William V. & Lepelley, Dominique & Moyouwou, Issofa, 2016. "A note on Approval Voting and electing the Condorcet loser," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 115-122.
    7. David McCune & Jennifer Wilson, 2023. "Ranked-choice voting and the spoiler effect," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 196(1), pages 19-50, July.
    8. Eric Kamwa, 2023. "On Two Voting systems that combine approval and preferences: Fallback Voting and Preference Approval Voting," Working Papers hal-03614585, HAL.
    9. Eric Kamwa, 2019. "Condorcet efficiency of the preference approval voting and the probability of selecting the Condorcet loser," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 87(3), pages 299-320, October.
    10. Eric Kamwa, 2019. "On the Likelihood of the Borda Effect: The Overall Probabilities for General Weighted Scoring Rules and Scoring Runoff Rules," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 28(3), pages 519-541, June.
    11. Regenwetter, Michel & Grofman, Bernard & Marley, A. A. J., 2002. "On the model dependence of majority preference relations reconstructed from ballot or survey data," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 43(3), pages 451-466, July.
    12. Eyal Baharad & Shmuel Nitzan, 2011. "Condorcet vs. Borda in light of a dual majoritarian approach," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 71(2), pages 151-162, August.
    13. D. Marc Kilgour & Jean-Charles Grégoire & Angèle M. Foley, 2020. "The prevalence and consequences of ballot truncation in ranked-choice elections," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 184(1), pages 197-218, July.
    14. Conal Duddy, 2017. "Geometry of run-off elections," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 173(3), pages 267-288, December.
    15. Eric Kamwa & Vincent Merlin, 2018. "The Likelihood of the Consistency of Collective Rankings under Preferences Aggregation with Four Alternatives using Scoring Rules: A General Formula and the Optimal Decision Rule," Working Papers hal-01757742, HAL.
    16. David McCune & Adam Graham-Squire, 2023. "Monotonicity Anomalies in Scottish Local Government Elections," Papers 2305.17741, arXiv.org, revised Oct 2023.
    17. David McCune & Matthew I. Jones & Andy Schultz & Adam Graham-Squire & Ismar Volic & Belle See & Karen Xiao & Malavika Mukundan, 2026. "Candidate Moderation under Instant Runoff and Condorcet Voting: Evidence from the Cooperative Election Study," Papers 2603.03619, arXiv.org, revised Mar 2026.
    18. David McCune & Adam Graham-Squire, 2024. "Monotonicity anomalies in Scottish local government elections," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 63(1), pages 69-101, August.
    19. Eric Kamwa & Vincent Merlin, 2019. "The Likelihood of the Consistency of Collective Rankings Under Preferences Aggregation with Four Alternatives Using Scoring Rules: A General Formula and the Optimal Decision Rule," Computational Economics, Springer;Society for Computational Economics, vol. 53(4), pages 1377-1395, April.
    20. Dan S. Felsenthal & Hannu Nurmi, 2018. "Monotonicity Violations by Borda’s Elimination and Nanson’s Rules: A Comparison," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 27(4), pages 637-664, August.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:arx:papers:2602.21504. 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: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.org/ .

    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.