A Caution About Instant Runoff Voting

Beyond the Spoiler Effect: Can Ranked Choice Voting Solve the Problem of Political Polarization?
University of Illinois Law Review, Forthcoming

Nathan Atkinson University of Wisconsin - Madison
Edward B. Foley Ohio State University (OSU) - Michael E. Moritz College of Law
Scott Ganz Georgetown University - McDonough School of Business

Abstract

Ranked-Choice Voting (RCV) is growing in popularity among election reformers, who have coalesced in particular around Instant Runoff Voting (IRV), a specific form of RCV that has recently been adopted in Maine and Alaska and will likely be proposed in many more states as ballot initiatives in the coming years. While reformers hope that IRV can ameliorate extremism and political polarization, this paper presents empirical evidence that undercuts these hopes. For instance, Alaska’s very first election following the state’s adoption of IRV signaled that the method may fail to elect the candidate most preferred by a majority of the state’s voters. Extrapolating from Alaska’s experience, and using a nationally representative sample of over 50,000 voters, we analyze the prospective effects of adopting IRV in every state. This analysis shows that IRV tends to produce winning candidates who are more divergent ideologically from their state’s median voter than do other forms of RCV. And the effect is most pronounced in the most polarized states—precisely the electorates for which IRV is being promoted as an antidote to existing divisiveness. We conclude by highlighting other formulations of RCV that result in more representative outcomes and are thereby better positioned to combat extremism and political polarization.

They explain:

Instant runoff voting does result in the majority rule its advocates tout, but only in the sense that the winning candidate is definitionally preferred to the runner-up candidate by a majority of the electorate. When no more than two candidates are electorally viable, as is frequently the case under two-partyrule, IRV ensures that the candidate with the widest support wins the election. However, a third viable candidate undermines the guarantee that the winner under IRV—or even the runner-up—will be the candidate with the “broadest support from all voters.” In fact, one can easily construct examples where a candidate supported by “a true majority of the voters” is not included in the final two-candidate matchup.

Consider an election with five voters and three candidates: a left-leaning candidate, Linda; a right-leaning candidate, Rachel; and a centrist candidate, Carl. Two voters are liberals and prefer Linda to Carl to Rachel. Two voters are conservatives and prefer Rachel to Carl to Linda. And the lone centrist voter prefers Carl to Linda to Rachel. In an election conducted under IRV, Carl receives only one first-choice vote, and so is eliminated after the first round. The one vote for Carl then transfers to Linda, who wins the runoff election against Rachel by a count of 3-2. Linda does in fact have the “broadest support from all voters” in the contest between Linda and Rachel. However, if the election had been between Carl and Linda, then Carl would have had the “broadest support from all voters,” defeating Linda by a vote of 3-2. Likewise, Carl would have beaten Rachel by the same vote. Yet, because of IRV’s focus on first-place choices in determining the order in which candidates are eliminated from contention, Carl is unable to survive the first ballot. Recall that under Condorcet’s method, Carl would be the most deserving candidate: a majority of voters prefer him to either alternative. But centrist Carl does not win the IRV election when both the liberal and the conservative alternatives have larger bases.

 

Social Isolation

Chelsea Conaboy reports at Politico:

Social isolation is not only unpleasant; it can be deadly. Someone who lacks social relationships has the same risk for early death as someone who is severely obese, according to a 2015 analysis by researchers at Brigham Young University. The feeling of loneliness, or a person’s perception of being isolated, has been linked to higher blood pressure and cognitive decline. Taken together, social isolation and loneliness were associated with a 29 percent increased risk for coronary heart disease and a 32 percent increased risk for stroke, according to another large-scale analysis led by researchers at the University of York in Great Britain.

Just how isolation erodes health is a matter of some speculation. Scientists have long thought that interaction with others is beneficial because of “social control.” Friends and family members prop each other up, encouraging good behavior and healthy habits. When those relationships break down, so can a person’s health.

But in recent years, research has found that something more is at work: Loneliness, often thought of as a matter of the heart, may actually change the brain. The authors of a 2015 paper published in the Annual Review of Psychology theorize that chronic loneliness increases activity in a network of glands that control stress responses and create an inflammatory effect that raises the risk for chronic illnesses.
...

 Nearly half of Mainers 65 and older — about 46 percent — live alone, slightly higher than the national rate, according to 2015 U.S. Census data; fewer than one-third lived alone in 1990. Older adults who are lonely are less likely to be married and more likely to have annual household income of $25,000 or less, according to a report conducted for the AARP Foundation by Hawkley and others at NORC using 2010 data. Experts say shifts in family dynamics have compounded other factors that are part of rural life that contribute to isolation, including poor public transportation and long travel times to grocery stores, doctors, community centers or even neighbors’ homes.

Online Oppo Fodder

Many posts have dealt with opposition research, which has entered a new era.  In cyberspace, you leave a trail -- and oppo researchers can find it.  Politico reports that Maine state Senate candidate Colleen Lachowicz is under attack for gaming and blogging:

In an unusual press release issued Thursday, the Maine GOP attacked Lachowicz for a “bizarre double life” in which she’s a devotee of the hugely popular online role-playing game World of Warcraft. In the game, she’s “Santiaga,” an "orc assassination rogue" with green skin, fangs, a Mohawk and pointy ears.

Lachowicz is a Democrat running against incumbent state Sen. Tom Martin in south-central Maine, a heavily Democratic district of about 80,000 people. Martin, elected in 2010, is the first Republican to hold the seat since the 1960s, and his seat is one Democrats are eager to flip back.

Lachowicz has blogged under her own name about her World of Warcraft achievements as well as left-wing politics in a dedicated section of the liberal DailyKos.Com. The Maine GOP excerpted several provocative lines form her posts including one on tax policy that concludes, “Now if you’ll excuse me, I may have to go and hunt down Grover Norquist and drown him in my bathtub.”

 

New Turnout Numbers

Our chapter on political participation discusses voter turnout. There are now new data on the subject, according to a release from the Census Bureau:

Hispanics made up 7 percent of voters in the 2010 congressional election, the highest percentage for a nonpresidential election since the U.S. Census Bureau began collecting this information in 1974. Hispanics comprised 6 percent of voters in 2006.

Blacks also increased their share of the electorate, going from 11 percent in 2006 to 12 percent in 2010 (a figure not statistically different from the record high in 1998).

These numbers come from Voting and Registration in the Election of November 2010, a set of tables that compares voting and registration patterns by demographic, social and geographic characteristics. They also include state figures on voting and registration.

“These statistics show that the nation's electorate is becoming increasingly diverse,” said Tiffany Julian, of the Census Bureau's Education and Social Stratification Branch. “The electorate looks much different than when we first started collecting these data 37 years ago.”

The Asian share of the electorate in 2010 was not statistically different than the share in 2006 (2.5 percent and 2.2 percent, respectively). Non-Hispanic white voters decreased from 80.4 percent of the electorate in 2006 to 77.5 percent in 2010, a decline of 2.9 percentage points.

Other highlights from the tables:

• Maine and Washington experienced voter turnout greater than 55 percent. Fewer than 40 percent of citizens in Texas reported voting.
• The most common reason people did not vote was they were too busy (27 percent). Another 16 percent felt that their vote would not make a difference.
• Homeowners were more likely to register and vote than renters; 74 percent of homeowners were registered to vote and 68 percent actually voted; 61 percent of renters were registered and 52 percent voted.
• People with at least some college education made up 68 percent of voters. Individuals without a high school diploma comprised 6 percent of voters.
• Veterans were more likely to vote (57 percent) than nonveterans (44 percent).
• People living in families who earned $100,000 or more were more than twice as likely to vote as those who lived with families earning less than $20,000 (61 percent and 30 percent, respectively).

Two states with lower turnout are Tennessee and West Virginia.

Gannett reports:

Census bureau surveys dating back to 1990 show Tennessee has consistently ranked lower than most states in congressional election turnout. It has numbered among the bottom 15 in all but the 2002 election.

"Historically the southern states have had a lower turnout," said Mark Byrnes, a political science professor at Middle Tennessee State University. "Part of it's tied to education. We know that education is correlated to the likelihood to vote, and we have a low percentage of college-educated people."

Nationally, college-educated people made up 68 percent of voters in 2010, according to census figures. People without a high-school diploma accounted for 6 percent of voters.

Nationwide and in Tennessee, turnout was higher among older Americans than among young people.

About 16 percent of citizens between 18 and 24 voted in Tennessee, compared to 21 percent nationwide. Sixty-three percent of Tennesseans between 65 and 74 showed up at the polls -- consistent with national data.

Byrnes said high turnout among older voters isn't surprising.

"Those are by and large retired people who have a great interest in making sure that the government programs that serve them stay healthy," he said. "They have plenty of time to vote and to keep up with the issues, and if you add time to interest, you're likely to get voting."

WVNS-TV reports:

Marybeth Beller, associated professor and chair of the Department of Political Science at Marshall University, said the low turnout rates for young people are not surprising.

“Since we passed the amendment to the Constitution lowering the voting age to 18, we’ve seen a drop off in that cohort,” Beller said.

“Unless we have campaign issues that connect to people in that age group, they don’t tune in.”

In the past couple of years, much of the political debate nationwide has been on health care and health insurance, but that issue is not a priority for young people, Beller said. A discussion of college tuition or of jobs could bring more younger voters to the polls, she said.

Beller said she does not expect next week’s election for governor to bring out many younger voters.

“There’s very little about the Tomblin-Maloney campaign that has to do with issues young people deal with,” she said.