Search

From the perspective of social choice theory, ranked-choice voting (RCV) is known to have many flaws. RCV can fail to elect a Condorcet winner and is susceptible to monotonicity paradoxes and the spoiler effect, for example. We use a database of 182 American ranked-choice elections for political office from the years 2004-2022 to investigate empirically how frequently RCV's deficiencies manifest in practice. Our general finding is that RCV's weaknesses are rarely observed in real-world elections, with the exception that ballot exhaustion frequently causes majoritarian failures.

The methods of single transferable vote (STV) and sequential ranked-choice voting (RCV) are different methods for electing a set of winners in multiwinner elections. STV is a classical voting method that has been widely used internationally for many years. By contrast, sequential RCV has rarely been used, and only recently has seen an increase in usage as several cities in Utah have adopted the method to elect city council members. We use Monte Carlo simulations and a large database of real-world ranked-choice elections to investigate the behavior of sequential RCV by comparing it to STV. Our general finding is that sequential RCV often produces different winner sets than STV. Furthermore, sequential RCV is best understood as an excellence-based method which will not produce proportional results, often at the expense of minority interests.

The single transferable vote (STV) voting method is used to elect multiple candidates in ranked-choice elections. One weakness of STV is that it fails multiple fairness criteria related to monotonicity and no-show paradoxes. We analyze 1,079 local government STV elections in Scotland to estimate the frequency of such monotonicity anomalies in real-world elections, and compare our results with prior empirical and theoretical research about the rates at which such anomalies occur. In 41 of the 1079 elections we found some kind of monotonicity anomaly. We generally find that the rates of anomalies are similar to prior empirical research and much lower than what most theoretical research has found. Most of the STV anomalies we find are the first of their kind to be documented in real-world elections., Comment: 30 pages

The November 2022 ranked choice election for District 4 School Director in Oakland, CA, was very interesting from the perspective of social choice theory. The election did not contain a Condorcet winner and exhibited downward and upward monotonicity paradoxes, for example. Furthermore, an error in the settings of the ranked choice tabulation software led to the wrong candidate being declared the winner. This article explores the strange features of this election and places it in the broader context of ranked choice elections in the United States.

The August 2022 Alaska Special Election for US House contained many interesting features from the perspective of social choice theory. This election used instant runoff voting (often referred to as ranked choice voting) to elect a winner, and many of the weaknesses of this voting method were on display in this election. For example, the Condorcet winner is different from the instant runoff winner, and the election demonstrated a monotonicity paradox. The election also demonstrated a no show paradox; as far as we are aware, this election represents the first document American ranked choice election to demonstrate this paradox.