IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2306.07147.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Candidate Incentive Distributions: How voting methods shape electoral incentives

Author

Listed:
  • Marcus Ogren

Abstract

We evaluate the tendency for different voting methods to promote political compromise and reduce tensions in a society by using computer simulations to determine which voters candidates are incentivized to appeal to. We find that Instant Runoff Voting incentivizes candidates to appeal to a wider range of voters than Plurality Voting, but that it leaves candidates far more strongly incentivized to appeal to their base than to voters in opposing factions. In contrast, we find that Condorcet methods and STAR (Score Then Automatic Runoff) Voting provide the most balanced incentives; these differences between voting methods become more pronounced with more candidates are in the race and less pronounced in the presence of strategic voting. We find that the incentives provided by Single Transferable Vote to appeal to opposing voters are negligible, but that a tweak to the tabulation algorithm makes them substantial.

Suggested Citation

  • Marcus Ogren, 2023. "Candidate Incentive Distributions: How voting methods shape electoral incentives," Papers 2306.07147, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2024.
    • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2306.07147
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/2306.07147
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Katherine Gehl, 2023. "The case for the five in final five voting," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 34(3), pages 286-296, September.
    2. Crosson, Jesse, 2021. "Extreme districts, moderate winners: Same-party challenges, and deterrence in top-two primaries," Political Science Research and Methods, Cambridge University Press, vol. 9(3), pages 532-548, July.
    3. Donald Horowitz, 2004. "The alternative vote and interethnic moderation: A reply to Fraenkel and Grofman," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 121(3), pages 507-517, February.
    4. Sara Wolk & Jameson Quinn & Marcus Ogren, 2023. "STAR Voting, equality of voice, and voter satisfaction: considerations for voting method reform," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 34(3), pages 310-334, September.
    5. Martha Kropf, 2021. "Using Campaign Communications to Analyze Civility in Ranked Choice Voting Elections," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 9(2), pages 280-292.
    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. Kiran Tomlinson & Johan Ugander & Jon Kleinberg, 2023. "The Moderating Effect of Instant Runoff Voting," Papers 2303.09734, arXiv.org, revised Jan 2024.
    2. Nenad Stojanović & Matteo Bonotti, 2020. "Political Parties in Deeply Multilingual Polities: Institutional Conditions and Lessons for the EU," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 58(3), pages 599-615, May.
    3. Jon Fraenkel & Bernard Grofman, 2007. "The merits of Neo-Downsian modeling of the alternative vote: A reply to Horowitz," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 133(1), pages 1-11, October.
    4. Donald Horowitz, 2007. "Where have all the parties gone? Fraenkel and Grofman on the alternative vote – yet again," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 133(1), pages 13-23, October.
    5. David McCune & Jennifer Wilson, 2023. "Ranked-choice voting and the spoiler effect," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 196(1), pages 19-50, July.
    6. Adedokun, Ayokunu, 2017. "Post-conflict peacebuilding: A critical survey of the literature and avenues for future research," MERIT Working Papers 2017-016, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    7. Caroline J. Tolbert & Daria Kuznetsova, 2021. "Editor’s Introduction: The Promise and Peril of Ranked Choice Voting," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 9(2), pages 265-270.
    8. Joseph Ornstein & Robert Norman, 2014. "Frequency of monotonicity failure under Instant Runoff Voting: estimates based on a spatial model of elections," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 161(1), pages 1-9, October.
    9. Todd Donovan & Caroline Tolbert & Samuel Harper, 2022. "Demographic differences in understanding and utilization of ranked choice voting," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 103(7), pages 1539-1550, December.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:arx:papers:2306.07147. 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: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.org/ .

    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.