Ranked Choice Voting And Condorcet Failure in the Alaska 2022 Special Election: How Might Other Voting Systems Compare?

Overview

• The August 2022 U.S. House of Representatives special election in Alaska used a single-winner ranked choice voting system called Instant Runoff Voting.
• The results displayed a phenomenon called Condorcet failure, where the candidate (Nick Begich) who was more broadly acceptable to voters was eliminated in the first round.
• This paper explores the potential outcomes if the election had used two alternative voting systems: Approval Voting and STAR (Score Then Automatic Runoff) Voting.

Plain English Explanation

The August 2022 special election for the U.S. House of Representatives in Alaska featured three main candidates and used a voting system called Instant Runoff Voting. This system asks voters to rank the candidates in order of preference.

Despite being more broadly accepted by voters, one of the candidates, Nick Begich, was eliminated in the first round of ballot counting because he received the fewest first-place votes. This is a known phenomenon called Condorcet failure, where the "most preferred" candidate doesn't win.

This paper explores what might have happened if the election had used two other voting systems instead: Approval Voting, where voters can select any number of candidates they approve of, or STAR Voting, which combines scored ballots with an automatic runoff. The researchers found that under Approval Voting, the eventual winner (Peltola) would likely still have won, while under STAR Voting, the eliminated candidate (Begich) would almost certainly have won instead.

Technical Explanation

The paper uses the detailed Cast Vote Record data from the Alaska election to simulate how the results might have differed under Approval Voting and STAR Voting.

For Approval Voting, the researchers assumed voters would approve of all candidates they ranked 1st or 2nd on their ranked choice ballots. Under this assumption, Peltola would have won, but Begich would have been a close second.

For STAR Voting, the researchers gave each voter's ranking a numerical score (e.g., 5 points for 1st choice, 3 for 2nd, 1 for 3rd). The two candidates with the highest total scores would then advance to a final round. Based on the scoring, Begich would have advanced to the final round and would have defeated the other finalist.

Critical Analysis

The paper acknowledges that its findings rely on certain assumptions about voter behavior under the alternative voting systems. It's possible that voters might have behaved differently if the systems were actually used, rather than just simulated.

Additionally, the paper does not delve into other important considerations, such as the impact of voting advice applications on voter choices, the resilience of the systems to manipulation, or the computational complexity of the vote-counting process.

Overall, the paper provides a helpful exploration of how different voting systems can lead to different outcomes, but more research would be needed to fully understand the implications for real-world elections.

Conclusion

This paper uses data from a U.S. House of Representatives special election in Alaska to compare the potential outcomes under Instant Runoff Voting, Approval Voting, and STAR Voting. The findings suggest that the eliminated candidate, Nick Begich, would have been the likely winner under STAR Voting, despite not winning under the actual Instant Runoff system used.

These results highlight the importance of carefully considering the choice of voting method, as it can significantly impact the election outcome. Further research is needed to fully understand the tradeoffs and implications of different voting systems, especially when it comes to algorithmic misjudgement of search results and other potential biases.