Rather than using second-round runoffs to settle elections in which no candidate wins a first-round majority, it would be better to use ranked-choice voting (as in the state of Maine) in which voters are encouraged to rank all of the candidates.
Responses
Responses weighted by each expert's confidence
Participant | University | Vote | Confidence | Bio/Vote History |
---|---|---|---|---|
Daron Acemoglu |
MIT | Bio/Vote History | ||
No voting system is perfect. Conflicts/ambiguities cannot be avoided. But ranked voting is typically better &allows for entry by new parties
|
||||
Alberto Alesina |
Harvard | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
||||
Joseph Altonji |
Yale | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
||||
Alan Auerbach |
Berkeley | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
||||
David Autor |
MIT | Bio/Vote History | ||
Much voter preference info wasted in dichotomous voting! Rank-choice voting preferable, and could reduce bilateral party monopoly
|
||||
Katherine Baicker |
University of Chicago | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
||||
Abhijit Banerjee |
MIT | Bio/Vote History | ||
Both are manipulable but they each have different properties
|
||||
Marianne Bertrand |
Chicago | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
||||
Markus Brunnermeier |
Princeton | Did Not Answer | Bio/Vote History | |
|
||||
Raj Chetty |
Harvard | Did Not Answer | Bio/Vote History | |
|
||||
Judith Chevalier |
Yale | Bio/Vote History | ||
I *think* all of the preference paradoxes that impact ranked choice voting ALSO identically impact a plurality vote + runoff voting.
-see background information here |
||||
David Cutler |
Harvard | Bio/Vote History | ||
Saves on the cost of elections, at least.
|
||||
Angus Deaton |
Princeton | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
||||
Darrell Duffie |
Stanford | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
||||
Aaron Edlin |
Berkeley | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
||||
Barry Eichengreen |
Berkeley | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
||||
Liran Einav |
Stanford | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
||||
Ray Fair |
Yale | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
||||
Amy Finkelstein |
MIT | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
||||
Pinelopi Goldberg |
Yale | Did Not Answer | Bio/Vote History | |
|
||||
Austan Goolsbee |
Chicago | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
||||
Michael Greenstone |
University of Chicago | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
||||
Robert Hall |
Stanford | Bio/Vote History | ||
Expert analysis finds no general superiority for instant runoffs.
-see background information here |
||||
Oliver Hart |
Harvard | Bio/Vote History | ||
With a run-off, if there are several candidates, the "wrong" two may win the first round. This does not happen with a ranked system.
|
||||
Bengt Holmström |
MIT | Did Not Answer | Bio/Vote History | |
|
||||
Caroline Hoxby |
Stanford | Bio/Vote History | ||
So long as voters understand that they ought to put in the effort to rank all candidates (and do so), this is a superior system to runoff.
|
||||
Hilary Hoynes |
Berkeley | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
||||
Kenneth Judd |
Stanford | Bio/Vote History | ||
This gives each voter more flexibility in describing their preferences.
|
||||
Steven Kaplan |
Chicago Booth | Bio/Vote History | ||
Current System has worked well for 200+ years. Not a good idea to change.
|
||||
Anil Kashyap |
Chicago Booth | Bio/Vote History | ||
not perfect but avoids perverse outcomes better than first past the post.
|
||||
Pete Klenow |
Stanford | Bio/Vote History | ||
Jonathan Levin |
Stanford | Bio/Vote History | ||
Makes for shorter process and fewer votes; can have disadvantage if voters asked to rank many candidates based on little information.
|
||||
Eric Maskin |
Harvard | Bio/Vote History | ||
Ranked-choice voting leads to less vote splitting than two-round runoff voting. It also doesn't require voters to come back a second time.
|
||||
William Nordhaus |
Yale | Bio/Vote History | ||
Yes, but experience has been that it is complex and we would need to ensure that it does not lower participation.
|
||||
Emmanuel Saez |
Berkeley | Did Not Answer | Bio/Vote History | |
|
||||
Larry Samuelson |
Yale | Bio/Vote History | ||
We have too many voting impossibility theorems to state flatly that one method is better.
|
||||
José Scheinkman |
Columbia University | Bio/Vote History | ||
Although rank-order voting is also subject to well known voting paradoxes
|
||||
Richard Schmalensee |
MIT | Bio/Vote History | ||
Not a great question to sell this scheme: what exactly does "would be better" mean?
|
||||
Carl Shapiro |
Berkeley | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
||||
Robert Shimer |
University of Chicago | Bio/Vote History | ||
Ranked choice voting is cheaper. Second round runoffs let voters focus on leading candidates. Otherwise they are the same.
|
||||
James Stock |
Harvard | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
||||
Richard Thaler |
Chicago Booth | Bio/Vote History | ||
This seems better than the status quo with 3rd party candidates altering outcomes.I don't think strategic voting would be a problem.
|
||||
Christopher Udry |
Northwestern | Bio/Vote History | ||
|