Civility in Ranked-Choice Voting Elections: Does Evidence Fit the Normative Narrative?

Abstract

ABSTRACT We test if ranked choice voting (RCV) was associated with civil campaigns. For RCV to meet proponents’ expectations about civility in campaigns, candidates would moderate attacks and appeal for second place rankings. Candidates and voters were surveyed in US cities using RCV and in similar cities using plurality elections to assess differences in campaigning. Additional data were collected from the 2021 New York City RCV mayoral primary. We find subtle differences in campaigning reported by candidates in RCV and plurality jurisdictions. Candidates reported asking voters to support themselves and other candidates in RCV and non-RCV contests. Candidates in RCV contests were more likely to report groups telling voters to support multiple candidates, and were more likely to perceive the tone of campaigns as positive. However, the latter result did not extend to frontrunner candidates. As for voters, about one-third reported candidates made appeals for second and third place rankings, and voters in RCV cities viewed campaigns as less negative. Supporters of an NYC mayoral candidate who had a rival directing second preferences to their preferred candidate also viewed the campaign as less negative. This evidence only partly fits the normative narrative, suggesting limits to how much RCV may foster civility.