Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Does ranked choice voting (RCV) change the information search behavior of voters? I present a theory, consistent with past work on voter behavior and information, which shows that (1) RCV is a more complex informational environment than typical single preference voting, which then predicts that (2) voters should be motivated to search for and retain more information on the candidates, and particularly on non-copartisans. This change in behavior should correspond to an increase in the cost of voting. I design a survey experiment to test this theory on a nationally diverse sample of U.S. adults, and a follow-up survey with bonus incentives to add to the robustness of the results. Results indicate that voters do not adapt their information search and retention behaviors, nor do they spend more cognitive effort in the process of voting. The results are particularly important in the context of the rapid expansion of RCV.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Adida

Claire

et al. (2020). “When Does Information Influence Voters? The Joint Importance of Salience and Coordination.” In: Comparative Political Studies 53.6. SAGE Publications Inc, 851–891. issn: 0010-4140. doi: 10.1177/0010414019879945.<https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414019879945 (visited on 02/18/2022)>.

Ansolabehere

Stephen

et al. (1994). “Does Attack Advertising Demobilize the Electorate?” In: The American Political Science Review 88.4. American Political Science Association, Cambridge University Press, 829–838. issn: 0003-0554. doi: 10.2307/2082710. <https://www.jstor.org/stable/2082710> (visited on 04/19/2022).

Anthony

Joseph

et al. (2021). “Ranked Choice Voting in Maine from the Perspective of Local Election Officials.” In: Election Law Journal: Rules, Politics, and Policy 20.3. Mary Ann Liebert, Inc., 254–271. issn: 1533-1296. doi: 10.1089/elj.2020.0650.

Aronow

P. M

. et al. (2020). Evidence of Rising Rates of Inattentiveness on Lucid in 2020. SocArXiv. doi: 10.31235/osf.io/8sbe4. <https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/8sbe4/> (visited on 11/04/2021).

Ashworth

Scott

and Ethan Bueno De

Mesquita

(2014). “Is Voter Competence Good for Voters?: Information, Rationality, and Democratic Performance.” In: American Political Science Review 108.3. Cambridge University Press, 565–587. issn: 0003-0554, 1537-5943. doi: 10.1017/S0003055414000264. <https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/is-voter-competence-good-for-voters-information-rationality-and-democratic-performance/C76BDFD1BB9EE49EF9EED4BBCFF1FFFC> (visited on 12/07/2021).

Bartels

Larry M.

(2002). “Beyond the Running Tally: Partisan Bias in Political Perceptions.” In: Political Behavior 24.2, 117–150. issn: 1573-6687. doi: 10.1023/A:1021226224601. <https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021226224601> (visited on 01/26/2023).

Bartels

Larry M.

(1996). “Uninformed Votes: Information Effects in Presidential Elections.” American Journal of Political Science, 40(1):194–230.

Basinger

Scott J

. and Howard

Lavine

(2005). “Ambivalence, Information, and Electoral Choice”. In: American Political Science Review 99.2. Cambridge University Press, 169–184. issn: 1537-5943, 0003-0554. doi: 10 . 1017 / S0003055405051580. <https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/abs/ambivalence-information-and-electoral-choice/DEBD22A184E181255227449263A1BEA0> (visited on 10/04/2021).

Berinsky

Adam J.

(2005). “The Perverse Consequences of Electoral Reform in the United States”. In: American Politics Research 33.4. SAGE Publications Inc, 471–491. issn: 1532-673X. doi: 10.1177/1532673X04269419. <https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X04269419> (visited on 01/25/2023).

10.

Boudreau

Cheryl

, Colner

Jonathan

, and A.

Scott

. MacKenzie (2020). Ranked-Choice Voting and Political Expression: How Voting Aids Narrow the Gap between Informed and Uninformed Citizens. Rochester, NY. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.3786972. <https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=3786972> (visited on 05/10/2023).

11.

Brader

Ted

(2005). “Striking a Responsive Chord: How Political Ads Motivate and Persuade Voters by Appealing to Emotions.” In: American Journal of Political Science 49.2. Midwest Political Science Association, Wiley, 388–405. issn: 0092-5853. doi: 10.2307/3647684. <https://www.jstor.org/stable/3647684> (visited on 04/27/2022).

12.

Brutger

Ryan

et al. (2022). “Abstraction in Experimental Design: Testing the Tradeoffs”. In: Elements in Experimental Political Science. ISBN: 9781108999533 9781108995597 Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/9781108999533. <https://www.cambridge.org/core/elements/abstraction-in-experimental-design/9B21F5D1B9158659A2009E7C4450CA3B> (visited on 05/16/2023).

13.

Bullock

John G

. et al. (2013). Partisan Bias in Factual Beliefs about Politics. doi: 10.3386/w19080. <https://www.nber.org/papers/w19080> (visited on 01/26/2023).

14.

Burden

Barry C

. et al. (2014). “Election Laws, Mobilization, and Turnout: The Unanticipated Consequences of Election Reform.” In: American Journal of Political Science 58.1._eprint: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/ajps.12063, 95–109. issn: 1540-5907. doi: 10.1111/ajps.12063. <https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/ajps.12063> (visited on 01/25/2023).

15.

Bürkner

Paul-Christian

(2020). “Bayesian Item Response Modeling in R with brms and Stan”. In: arXiv:1905.09501 [stat]. arXiv: 1905.09501. <https://arxiv.org/abs/1905.09501> (visited on 04/21/2022).

16.

Burnett

Craig M.

and Vladimir

Kogan

(2014). Ballot (and Voter) ‘Exhaustion’ Under Instant Runoff Voting: An Examination of Four Ranked-Choice Elections. SSRN Scholarly Paper ID 2519723. Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network. <https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2519723> (visited on 10/09/2021).

17.

Campbell

Angus

(1980). The American Voter. In collab. with University of Michigan. Unabridged ed. Midway reprints. OCLC: ocm12961517. Chicago [Ill.]: University of Chicago Press. isbn: 978-0-226-09254-6.

18.

Carman

Christopher

, Mitchell

James

, and Johns

Robert

(2008). “The Unfortunate Natural Experiment in Ballot Design: The Scottish Parliamentary Elections of 2007”. In: Electoral Studies 27.3, 442–459. issn: 0261-3794. doi: 10.1016/j.electstud.2008.02.006. <https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261379408000279> (visited on 01/25/2023).

19.

Cerrone

Joseph

and Cynthia

McClintock

(2021). Ranked-Choice Voting, Runoff, and Democracy: Insights from Maine and Other U.S. States. SSRN Scholarly Paper ID 3769409. Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.3769409. <https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=3769409> (visited on 10/02/2021).

20.

Clark

Jesse

(2020). Rank Deficiency? Analyzing the Costs and Benefits of Single-Winner Ranked-Choice Voting. SSRN Scholarly Paper ID 3703197. Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.3703197. <https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract = 3703197> (visited on 06/01/2021).

21.

Clinton

Joshua

, Jackman

Simon

, and Rivers

Douglas

(2004). “The Statistical Analysis of Roll Call Data.” In: American Political Science Review 98.2. Cambridge University Press, 355–370. issn: 1537-5943, 0003-0554. doi: 10.1017/S0003055404001194. <https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/statistical-analysis-of-roll-call-data/75DBC6645F85A764AE9E5DBF468AB813> (visited on 04/21/2022).

22.

Cohen

Mollie

(2018). “A Dynamic Model of the Invalid Vote: How a Changing Candidate Menu Shapes Null Voting Behavior.” In: Electoral Studies 53. doi: 10.1016/j.electstud.2018.04.015.

23.

Coll

Joseph A.

(2021). “Demographic Disparities Using Ranked-Choice Voting? Ranking Difficulty, Under-Voting, and the 2020 Democratic Primary.” In: Politics and Governance 9.2, 293–305. issn: 2183-2463. doi: 10.17645/pag.v9i2.3913. <https://www.cogitatiopress.com/politicsandgovernance/article/view/3913> (visited on 05/11/2023).

24.

Cunow

Saul

et al. (2021). “Less Is More: The Paradox of Choice in Voting Behavior.” In: Electoral Studies 69, 102230. issn: 02613794. doi: 10.1016/j.electstud.2020.102230. <https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0261379420301104> (visited on 03/30/2022).

25.

Donovan

Todd

, Tolbert

Caroline

, and Gracey

Kellen

(2016). “Campaign civility under preferential and plurality voting”. In: Electoral Studies 42, pp. 157–163. issn: 0261-3794. doi: 10.1016/j.electstud.2016.02.009. url: https://www.sciencedirect. com/science/article/pii/S0261379416000299 (visited on 06/02/2021).

26.

Donovan

Todd

, Tolbert

Caroline

, and Gracey

Kellen

(2019). “Self-Reported Understanding of Ranked-Choice Voting.” In: Social Science Quarterly 100.5._eprint: <https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/ssqu.12651>, 1768–1776. issn: 1540-6237. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.12651. <https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/ssqu.12651> (visited on 06/01/2021).

27.

Downs

Anthony (Jan. 1

, 1957). An Economic Theory of Democracy. 1st edition. Boston: Harper and Row. 320 pp. isbn: 978-0-06-041750-5.

28.

Farrell

David M

. and Ian

Mcallister

(2006). “Voter Satisfaction and Electoral Systems: Does Preferential Voting in Candidate-Centred Systems Make a Difference?” In: European Journal of Political Research 45.5._eprint: <https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1475-6765.2006.00633.x >723–749. issn: 1475-6765. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6765.2006.00633.x. <https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1475-6765.2006.00633.x> (visited on 01/25/2023).

29.

Fiske

Susan T

. and Shelley E

Taylor

(1991). Social Cognition. Social Cognition, 2nd ed. xviii, 717. New York, NY, England: Mcgraw-Hill Book Company. xviii, 717. isbn: 978-0-07-021191-9.

30.

Franz

Michael M.

, Freedman

Paul

, Goldstein

Ken

, and Ridout

Travis N.

. (2008). “Understanding the Effect of Political Advertising on Voter Turnout: A Response to Krasno and Green.” The Journal of Politics 70(1), 262–268.

31.

Freedman

, M.

Franz

, and K

Goldstein

. (2004). “Campaign Advertising and Democratic Citizenship.” American Journal of Political Science 48(4), 723–741. <https://doi.org/10.2307/1519930>

32.

Gerber

Alan S.

, Huber

Gregory A.

, and Hill

Seth J.

(2013). “Identifying the Effect of All-Mail Elections on Turnout: Staggered Reform in the Evergreen State.” In: Political Science Research and Methods 1.1, 91–116. issn: 2049-8470, 2049-8489. doi: 10.1017/psrm.2013.5. <https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/political-science-research-and-methods/article/identifying-the-effect-of-allmail-elections-on-turnout-staggered-reform-in-the-evergreen-state/3725E51B9B7F331D77DC9B49130D7F7D> (visited on 03/12/2018).

33.

Grimmer

Justin

and Jesse

Yoder

(2021). “The Durable Differential Deterrent Effects of Strict Photo Identification Laws.” In: Political Science Research and Methods. Cambridge University Press, 1–17. Issn: 2049-8470, 2049-8489. doi: 10.1017/psrm.2020.57. <https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/political-science-research-and-methods/article/durable-differential-deterrent-effects-of-strict-photo-identification-laws/E97B3308FDA75972A6374EDCD26333BF> (visited on 04/15/2022).

34.

Gronke

Paul

, Galanes-Rosenbaum

Eva

, and Miller

Peter A.

(2007). “Early Voting and Turnout.” In: PS: Political Science & Politics 40.4, 639–645. issn: 1537-5935, 1049-0965. doi: 10.1017/S1049096507071028 .<https://www-cambridge-org.proxy.library.reed.edu/core/journals/ps-political-science-and-politics/article/early-voting-and-turnout/CA26767893568A1B6DB1EA56C49196E2> (visited on 03/12/2018).

35.

Iyengar

Sheena S

. and Mark R

Lepper

(2000). “When Choice Is Demotivating: Can One Desire Too Much of a Good Thing?” In: Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 79.6, 995–1006. issn: 1939-1315, 0022-3514. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.79.6.995. <https://doi.apa.org/getdoi.cfm?doi=10.1037/0022-3514.79.6.995> (visited on 10/08/2021).

36.

Iyengar

Sheena S.

, Wells

Rachael E.

, and Schwartz

Barry

(2006). “Doing Better but Feeling Worse: Looking for the ‘Best’ Job Undermines Satisfaction.” In: Psychological Science 17.2. SAGE Publications Inc, 143–150. issn: 0956-7976. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01677.x. <https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01677.x>(visited on 02/19/2022).

37.

John

Sarah

, Smith

Haley

, and Zack

Elizabeth

(2018). “The alternative vote: Do changes in single-member voting systems affect descriptive representation of women and minorities?” Electoral Studies, 54, 90–102. <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2018.05.009>

38.

Kimball

David

and Joseph

Anthony

(2021). Public Perceptions of Alternative Voting Systems: Results from a National Survey Experiment. SSRN Scholarly Paper ID 3854047. Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.3854047. <https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=3854047> (visited on 10/02/2021).

39.

Kimball

David C

. and Martha

Kropf

(2005). “Ballot Design and Unrecorded Votes on Paper-Based Ballots.” In: Public Opinion Quarterly 69.4, 508–529. issn: 0033-362X. doi: 10.1093/poq/nfi054. <https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfi054> (visited on 01/25/2023).

40.

Kousser

Thad

, Phillips

Justin

, and Shor

Boris

(2015). “Reform and Representation: A New Method Applied to Recent Electoral Changes.” Political Science Research and Methods, 6(4), 2018, 809–827. doi: 10.1017/psrm.2016.43.

41.

Krasno

Jonathan S

. and Donald P

Green

(2008). “Do Televised Presidential Ads Increase Voter Turnout? Evidence from a Natural Experiment.” In: The Journal of Politics 70.1. The University of Chicago Press, Southern Political Science Association, 245–261. issn: 0022-3816. doi: 10.1017/s0022381607080176. <https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1017/s0022381607080176> (visited on 04/27/2022).

42.

Kropf

Martha.

(2021). “Using Campaign Communications to Analyze Civility in Ranked Choice Voting Elections.” Politics and Governance 9(2), 280–92.

43.

Kuklinski

James H

. and Paul J

Quirk

(2000). “Reconsidering the Rational Public: Cognition, Heuristics, and Mass Opinion.” In: Elements of Reason: Cognition, Choice, and the Bounds of Rationality. Ed. by Arthur Lupia, Mathew D. McCubbins, and Samuel L. Popkin. Cambridge Studies in Public Opinion and Political Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 153–182. isbn: 978-0-521-65329-9. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511805813.008. <https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/elements-of-reason/reconsidering-the-rational-public-cognition-heuristics-and-mass-opinion/6FE2552D7ED91D14B2F2F95002B4D32F> (visited on 02/09/2022).

44.

Kunda

Ziva

(1990). “The Case for Motivated Reasoning”. In: Psychological Bulletin 108.3. American Psychological Association, 480–498. issn: 1939-1455. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.108.3.480.

45.

Lau

Richard R.

(2013). “Correct Voting in the 2008 U.S. Presidential Nominating Elections.” In: Political Behavior 35.2, pp. 331–355. issn: 1573-6687. doi: 10.1007/s11109-012-9198-9. <https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-012-9198-9> (visited on 01/25/2023).

46.

Lau

Richard R

. and David P

Redlawsk

(2001). “Advantages and Disadvantages of Cognitive Heuristics in Political Decision Making.” In: American Journal of Political Science 45.4, 951. issn:> 00925853. doi: 10.2307/2669334. <https://www.jstor.org/stable/2669334?origin=crossref> (visited on 10/08/2021).

47.

Lau

Richard R.

, Redlawsk

David P.

. (2006). How Voters Decide: Information Processing in Election Campaigns. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. isbn: 978-0-511-22433-1. <https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ucsd/detail.action?docID=268231> (visited on 06/01/2021).

48.

Lau

Richard R.

, Sigelman

Lee

, and Rovner

Ivy Brown

(2007). “The Effects of Negative Political Campaigns: A Meta-Analytic Reassessment.” In: Journal of Politics 69.4._eprint: <https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1468-2508.2007.00618.x >1176–1209. issn: 1468-2508. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2508.2007.00618.x. <https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1468-2508.2007.00618.x> (visited on 04/27/2022).

49.

Little

Andrew T.

, Schnakenberg

Keith E.

, and Turner

Ian R.

(2021). “Motivated Reasoning and Democratic Accountability.” In: American Political Science Review. Cambridge University Press, 1–17. issn: 0003-0554, 1537-5943. doi: 10.1017/S0003055421001209. <https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/motivated-reasoning-and-democratic-accountability/A5FDC6F7175255BDE8AA6AC054CD9176> (visited on 12/07/2021).

50.

Lupia

Arthur

(1992). “Busy Voters, Agenda Control, and the Power of Information.” In: The American Political Science Review 86.2. American Political Science Association, Cambridge University Press, 390–403. issn: 0003-0554. doi: 10.2307/1964228. <https://www.jstor.org/stable/1964228> (visited on 10/08/2021).

51.

Lupia

Arthur

(1994). “Shortcuts Versus Encyclopedias: Information and Voting Behavior in California Insurance Reform Elections.” In: American Political Science Review 88.1. Cambridge University Press, 63–76. issn: 1537-5943, 0003-0554. doi: 10.2307/2944882. <https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/abs/shortcuts-versus-encyclopedias-information-and-voting-behavior-in-california-insurance-reform-elections/75776D189E80711664254A02BC0573F4> (visited on 01/27/2023).

52.

Lupia

Arthur

and Mathew D

McCubbins

(1998). The Democratic Dilemma: Can Citizens Learn What They Need to Know? Cambridge, U.K.; New York: Cambridge University Press. isbn: 978-0-521-58593-4.

53.

Marcus

George E

. and Michael B

Mackuen

(1993). “Anxiety, Enthusiasm, and the Vote: The Emotional Underpinnings of Learning and Involvement During Presidential Campaigns.” In: The American Political Science Review 87.3. American Political Science Association, Cambridge University Press, 672–685. issn: 0003-0554. doi: 10.2307/2938743. <https://www.jstor.org/stable/2938743> (visited on 04/27/2022).

54.

McCarthy

Devin

and Jack

Santucci

(2021). “Ranked Choice Voting as a Generational Issue in Modern American Politics.” In: Politics & Policy 49.1. <https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/pp. 33–60. issn: 1747-1346. doi: 10.1111/polp.12390>. <https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/polp.12390 (visited on 01/19/2023)>.

55.

Mutz

Diana C

. and Robin

Pemantle

(2015). “Standards for Experimental Research: Encouraging a Better Understanding of Experimental Methods”. In: Journal of Experimental Political Science 2.2. Cambridge University Press, 192–215. <https://ideas.repec.org//a/cup/jexpos/v2y2015i02p192-215_00.html (visited on 01/19/2023).

56.

Mutz

Diana C.

, Pemantle

Robin

, and Pham

Philip

(2019). “The Perils of Balance Testing in Experimental Design: Messy Analyses of Clean Data.” In: The American Statistician 73.1. Taylor & Francis _eprint: <https://doi.org/10.1080/00031305.2017.1322143>, 32–42. issn: 0003-1305. doi: 10.1080/00031305.2017.1322143. <https://doi.org/10.1080/00031305.2017.1322143> (visited on 01/19/2023).

57.

Neely

Francis

and Corey

Cook

(2008). “Whose Votes Count?: Undervotes, Overvotes, and Ranking in San Francisco's Instant-Runoff Elections.” In: American Politics Research 36.4. SAGE Publications Inc, pp. 530–554. issn: 1532-673X. doi: 10.1177/1532673X08318110. <https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X08318110> (visited on 06/01/2021).

58.

Nguyen

Tam H

. et al. (2014). “An Introduction to Item Response Theory for Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement.” In: The Patient 7.1, 23–35. issn: 1178-1653. doi: 10.1007/s40271-013-0041-0. <https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4520411/> (visited on 04/21/2022).

59.

Pachón

Mónica

, Carroll

Royce

, and Barragán

Hernando

(2017). “Ballot Design and Invalid Votes: Evidence from Colombia.” In: Electoral Studies 48, 98–110. issn: 0261-3794. doi: 10.1016/j.electstud.2017.05.005. <https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261379416304279> (visited on 01/25/2023).

60.

Popkin

Samuel L.

(1991). The Reasoning Voter: Communication and Persuasion in Presidential Campaigns. Ed. by 2d edition. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. isbn: 978-0-226-67545-9. <https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/R/bo3636475.html> (visited on 12/20/2021).

61.

Schaffner

Brian

, Ansolabehere

Stephen

, and Luks.

Sam

(2022). Cooperative Election Study Common Content, 2020. <https://dataverse.harvard.edu/dataset.xhtml?persistentId=doi:10.7910/DVN/E9N6PH> (visited on 01/26/2023).

62.

Taber

Charles S

. and Milton

Lodge

(2006). “Motivated Skepticism in the Evaluation of Political Beliefs.” In: American Journal of Political Science 50.3. _eprint: <https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/5907.2006.00214.x>,755-769. issn: 1540-5907. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5907.2006.00214.x. <https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2006.00214.x> (visited on 01/26/2023).

63.

Terrell

Cynthia Richie

, Lamendola

Courtney

, and Reilly

Maura

(2021). “Election Reform and Women's Representation: Ranked Choice Voting in the U.S.” In: Politics and Governance 9.2. Number: 2, 332–343. issn: 2183-2463. doi: 10.17645/pag.v9i2.3924. <https://www.cogitatiopress.com/politicsandgovernance/article/view/3924>(visited on 02/08/2022).

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

1.12 MB

0.42 MB

0.00 MB

Voter Information Search and Ranked Choice Voting

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References

Supplementary Material