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
© 2025. Kent A. Clark Center for Global Markets.
12%
5%
0%
7%
16%
37%
23%
Responses weighted by each expert's confidence
© 2025. Kent A. Clark Center for Global Markets.
0%
13%
12%
38%
38%
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 | ||
|
|
||||
