IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/jcsosc/v7y2024i1d10.1007_s42001-024-00249-8.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A comparison of sequential ranked-choice voting and single transferable vote

Author

Listed:
  • David McCune

    (William Jewell College)

  • Erin Martin

    (Brigham Young University)

  • Grant Latina

    (William Jewell College)

  • Kaitlyn Simms

    (William Jewell College)

Abstract

The methods of single transferable vote (STV) and sequential ranked-choice voting (RCV) are different methods for electing a set of winners in multiwinner elections. STV is a classical voting method that has been widely used internationally for many years. By contrast, sequential RCV has rarely been used, and only recently has seen an increase in usage as several cities in Utah have adopted the method to elect city council members. We use Monte Carlo simulations and a large database of real-world ranked-choice elections to investigate the behavior of sequential RCV by comparing it to STV. Our general finding is that sequential RCV often produces different winner sets than STV. Furthermore, sequential RCV is best understood as a majoritarian method which will not produce proportional results, often at the expense of minority interests.

Suggested Citation

  • David McCune & Erin Martin & Grant Latina & Kaitlyn Simms, 2024. "A comparison of sequential ranked-choice voting and single transferable vote," Journal of Computational Social Science, Springer, vol. 7(1), pages 643-670, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:jcsosc:v:7:y:2024:i:1:d:10.1007_s42001-024-00249-8
    DOI: 10.1007/s42001-024-00249-8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s42001-024-00249-8
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s42001-024-00249-8?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jack Santucci, 2021. "Variants of Ranked-Choice Voting from a Strategic Perspective," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 9(2), pages 344-353.
    2. Davide Cervone & William Gehrlein & William Zwicker, 2005. "Which Scoring Rule Maximizes Condorcet Efficiency Under Iac?," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 58(2), pages 145-185, March.
    3. Gehrlein, William V., 1985. "The Condorcet criterion and committee selection," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 10(3), pages 199-209, December.
    4. Chang Geun Song, 2023. "What difference does a voting rule make?," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 34(3), pages 275-285, September.
    5. Chamberlin, John R. & Courant, Paul N., 1983. "Representative Deliberations and Representative Decisions: Proportional Representation and the Borda Rule," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 77(3), pages 718-733, September.
    6. Darmann, Andreas & Grundner, Julia & Klamler, Christian, 2019. "Evaluative voting or classical voting rules: Does it make a difference? Empirical evidence for consensus among voting rules," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 345-353.
    7. Mostapha Diss & Eric Kamwa & Abdelmonaim Tlidi, 2018. "The Chamberlin-Courant Rule and the k-Scoring Rules: Agreement and Condorcet Committee Consistency," Working Papers hal-01757761, HAL.
    8. Thomas C. Ratliff, 2003. "Some startling inconsistencies when electing committees," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 21(3), pages 433-454, December.
    9. Edith Elkind & Piotr Faliszewski & Piotr Skowron & Arkadii Slinko, 2017. "Properties of multiwinner voting rules," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 48(3), pages 599-632, March.
    10. Monroe, Burt L., 1995. "Fully Proportional Representation," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 89(4), pages 925-940, December.
    11. Dominique Lepelley & Ahmed Louichi & Fabrice Valognes, 2000. "Computer simulations of voting systems," Advances in Complex Systems (ACS), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 3(01n04), pages 181-194.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. David McCune & Erin Martin & Grant Latina & Kaitlyn Simms, 2023. "A Comparison of Sequential Ranked-Choice Voting and Single Transferable Vote," Papers 2306.17341, arXiv.org.
    2. Mostapha Diss & Eric Kamwa & Abdelmonaim Tlidi, 2019. "On some k-scoring rules for committee elections: agreement and Condorcet Principle," Working Papers hal-02147735, HAL.
    3. Diss, Mostapha & Mahajne, Muhammad, 2020. "Social acceptability of Condorcet committees," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 14-27.
    4. Mostapha Diss & Eric Kamwa & Abdelmonaim Tlidi, 2018. "The Chamberlin-Courant Rule and the k-Scoring Rules: Agreement and Condorcet Committee Consistency," Working Papers halshs-01817943, HAL.
    5. Mostapha Diss & Eric Kamwa & Abdelmonaim Tlidi, 2020. "On Some k -scoring Rules for Committee Elections: Agreement and Condorcet Principle," Revue d'économie politique, Dalloz, vol. 130(5), pages 699-725.
    6. Egor Ianovski, 2022. "Electing a committee with dominance constraints," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 318(2), pages 985-1000, November.
    7. Edith Elkind & Piotr Faliszewski & Piotr Skowron & Arkadii Slinko, 2017. "Properties of multiwinner voting rules," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 48(3), pages 599-632, March.
    8. Haris Aziz & Barton E. Lee, 2020. "The expanding approvals rule: improving proportional representation and monotonicity," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 54(1), pages 1-45, January.
    9. Edith Elkind & Jérôme Lang & Abdallah Saffidine, 2015. "Condorcet winning sets," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 44(3), pages 493-517, March.
    10. Mostapha Diss & Clinton Gubong Gassi & Issofa Moyouwou, 2023. "Combining diversity and excellence in multi winner elections," Working Papers 2023-05, CRESE.
    11. Haris Aziz & Markus Brill & Vincent Conitzer & Edith Elkind & Rupert Freeman & Toby Walsh, 2017. "Justified representation in approval-based committee voting," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 48(2), pages 461-485, February.
    12. Daniela Bubboloni & Mostapha Diss & Michele Gori, 2020. "Extensions of the Simpson voting rule to the committee selection setting," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 183(1), pages 151-185, April.
    13. Kamwa, Eric, 2017. "On stable rules for selecting committees," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 36-44.
    14. Martin Lackner & Piotr Skowron, 2017. "Consistent Approval-Based Multi-Winner Rules," Papers 1704.02453, arXiv.org, revised Oct 2019.
    15. Steven J. Brams & D. Marc Kilgour & Richard F. Potthoff, 2019. "Multiwinner approval voting: an apportionment approach," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 178(1), pages 67-93, January.
    16. Begoña Subiza & Josep E. Peris, 2017. "A Representative Committee by Approval Balloting," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 26(5), pages 1029-1040, September.
    17. Piotr Faliszewski & Piotr Skowron & Arkadii Slinko & Nimrod Talmon, 2018. "Multiwinner analogues of the plurality rule: axiomatic and algorithmic perspectives," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 51(3), pages 513-550, October.
    18. Mostapha Diss & Eric Kamwa, 2020. "Simulations in Models of Preference Aggregation," Post-Print hal-02424936, HAL.
    19. Eric Kamwa, 2022. "The Condorcet Loser Criterion in Committee Selection," Working Papers hal-03880064, HAL.
    20. Mostapha Diss & Ahmed Doghmi, 2016. "Multi-winner scoring election methods: Condorcet consistency and paradoxes," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 169(1), pages 97-116, October.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:jcsosc:v:7:y:2024:i:1:d:10.1007_s42001-024-00249-8. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.