Voter Satisfaction with Ranked-Choice Voting

Abstract

As ranked-choice voting (RCV) has spread across the United States in the last few decades, it has met with opposition from political groups claiming RCV ballots are too hard to understand, effectively burdening the right to vote (Barkley & Sakati, 2024). Though this particular challenge has been dismissed by courts (Barkley & Sakati, 2024), it remains a prominent component of opposition campaigns (Rosen, 2023; Foundation for Government Accountability, 2023; Mercier, 2024; MSPC, 2024; Save Our States, 2024). This study aims to respond to the lack of empirical research addressing the question of whether those who vote using RCV are satisfied they have properly exercised their right to vote. As a voting system that presents an opportunity to shift away from an increasingly polarized electoral context, this question is particularly salient. Participants were randomized into six groups: a single-choice voting ballot control group and five types of RCV ballot treatments. After receiving instructions and completing their ballots, they were asked a series of questions regarding the ease of completing the ballot and their satisfaction with the method of voting. The results were analyzed using multiple linear regressions, controlling for variables such as political orientation and age. Generally, participants considered RCV ballots slightly less simple but no more confusing than single-choice ballots. The grid ballot with poor instructions was the only treatment for which participants had significantly lower confidence in their votes being counted correctly. While the RCV treatments decreased voter satisfaction with the voting method, the treatments increased satisfaction with the outcome regardless of voter preferences and perceptions of fairness of the outcome regardless of voter preferences. Participants in the RCV treatment groups also felt their preferences were better captured by their ballots than those in the single-choice control group. Finally, several exploratory results expose opportunities for further research. As voter sentiment toward the primary two political parties became more negative, they were more likely to find RCV ballots more democratic and better able to capture their preferences. Likewise, voters with more extreme political views were more satisfied RCV methods were democratic and fair. Voters living in states with widespread use of RCV also viewed it more favorably on measures of democratic satisfaction. These exploratory results reveal potential for RCV to decrease polarization by offering voters a method they find fairer and more representative of their views.