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

被引:1
|
作者
McCune, David [1 ]
Martin, Erin [2 ]
Latina, Grant [1 ]
Simms, Kaitlyn [1 ]
机构
[1] William Jewell Coll, Dept Math & Data Sci, 500 Coll Hill, Liberty, MO 64068 USA
[2] Brigham Young Univ, Dept Math, Provo, UT 84602 USA
来源
关键词
Single transferable vote; Sequential ranked-choice voting; Simulations; Empirical results; CONSENSUS;
D O I
10.1007/s42001-024-00249-8
中图分类号
O1 [数学]; C [社会科学总论];
学科分类号
03 ; 0303 ; 0701 ; 070101 ;
摘要
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.
引用
收藏
页码:643 / 670
页数:28
相关论文
共 50 条