Abstract
Ranked choice voting (RCV) is experiencing a surge of interest in the United States, highlighted by its 2018 use for Congressional elections in Maine, the first application of a ranked ballot for national-level elections in American history. A century ago, the same system was introduced in another federal, two-party continental-sized democracy: Australia. RCV’s utility as a solution to inter-party coordination problems helps to explain its appeal in both countries, underscoring the potential benefits of a comparative analytical approach. This article examines this history of adoption and then turns to a comparison of recent RCV elections in Maine with state elections in New South Wales and Queensland, the two Australian states which share the same form of RCV as that used in the United States. This comparison shows how candidate and party endorsements influence voters’ rankings and can, over time, promote reciprocal exchanges between parties and broader systemic support for RCV. Such cross-partisan support helps explain the stability of RCV in Australia, with implications for the system’s prospects in the United States.
Highlights
Ranked choice voting (RCV) is experiencing a surge of interest in the United States
What light can the comparative evidence from Australia shed on this process? First, parties can use rank‐ ings to solve coordination problems
There is more preference‐swapping activity between parties of the left and centre‐left than on the right. This is compounded by the reality that conservative and single‐issue voters in Australia are more likely truncate their rankings, while younger voters for progressive parties are more willing to express a range of preferences, but less likely to directly follow party instructions (Green, 2018)
Summary
Ranked choice voting (RCV) is experiencing a surge of interest in the United States. Advocated as a means of delivering more majority‐supported victors and addressing broader problems of polarization, inci‐ vility and vote‐splitting under plurality rules, RCV has been adopted for mayoral and other local elections in major United States cities such as San Francisco, Oakland, Minneapolis, and Santa Fe. Politics and Governance, 2021, Volume 9, Issue 2, Pages 271–279 arrangements are usually made between parties which share some degree of ideological affinity, and communi‐ cated to voters via another distinctive Australian adapta‐ tion to RCV: ‘how‐to‐vote’ cards that detail each party’s suggested ordering of rankings amongst all candidates standing for a seat. How closely voters follow their favoured party’s rank‐ ing cues can determine not just who wins and loses a seat, and the extent to which RCV encourages broader campaign civility, moderation and collaboration (Donovan, Tolbert, & Gracey, 2016; Reilly, 2001) It is a key indicator of RCV’s effectiveness as a politi‐ cal reform. As I will show, the willingness of parties and candidates to advocate—or withhold— endorsements of secondary rankings for rivals can deter‐ mine the outcomes of closely‐fought contests such as Maine’s 2nd Congressional District RCV election in 2018, and similar races which feature multiple candidates who share overlapping policy platforms and ideology
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
