Using Campaign Communications to Analyze Civility in Ranked Choice Voting Elections

Abstract

Theory suggests that ranked choice voting (RCV) may create a more civil campaign environment. As voters must rank candidates, the candidates have an incentive to work with each other more collaboratively. This study uses text analysis software (LIWC) to examine candidate tweets and newspaper articles in RCV versus specifically-chosen plurality cities for evidence of positivity or negativity. In quantitatively comparing the tweets, the results are mixed among the cities. Qualitatively, candidates seem to be more likely to engage each other in RCV cities than in plurality cities. Using LIWC to analyze newspaper articles for campaign tone, one can see that RCV city articles have significantly more positive than negative words. This is the first published study to use direct campaign communication data to study RCV elections and campaign civility. This research validates survey research indicating that citizens perceive RCV campaigns are more civil.

New or “normal” election? Understanding ranking activity in New York City's first ranked choice voting election

“…As voters moved up this scale, they were 54 percent more likely to rank candidates. This finding confirms what some other scholars have found regarding the tone of campaigning in RCV elections (Donovan, Tolbert, and Gracey 2016;Drutman and Strano 2021;Kropf 2021;McGinn 2020). Because voters have the option to vote for more than one candidate, the candidates should be motivated to campaign against their opponents in a more civil tone.…”

“…Through ranking (a central feature of RCV), RCV is purported to increase voter satisfaction (Cerrone and McClintock 2021; Donovan. Tolbert, and Gracey 2016; Fagin 2021; Farrell and McAllister 2006), diversify the candidates running and winning (Lamendola and Terrell 2020; John, Smith, and Zack 2018; Otis and Dell 2021; Terrell, Lamendola, and Reilly 2021), and incentivize positive campaigning (Kropf 2021; McGinn 2020; Robb 2011). In order for voters to rank, they must understand the ranking system and instructions.…”

More Choices, More Problems? Ranked Choice Voting Errors in New York City

“…Candidates from districts with lower levels of English speakers expressed concerns about the lack of translated materials and equivalent terms for "ranked choice voting" in other languages during online training sessions. 5 While some research suggests that candidates in RCV elections tend to have more positive campaign messages (Donovan et al, 2016;Kropf, 2021;Sarah & Douglas, 2017), in NYC candidates continued to campaign using the previous approach of simply asking for voters' votes, without explaining the intricacies of RCV. In televised Mayoral Debates, most candidates were unwilling to provide instructions on how voters should rank candidates other than themselves, relying instead on traditional appeal tactics to ask for support.…”

Ranking Candidates in Local Elections: Neither Panacea nor Catastrophe for Candidates of Color

“…This process continues until one candidate wins a majority of active (non-exhausted) ballots (FairVote 2022). 1 Electoral reform advocates argue that increasing the number of choices that voters can express can have multiple benefits for the electoral processreducing partisan rancor and negative campaigning (Drutman 2020), bringing more diverse candidates into the political process (John, Smith, and Zack 2018), expanding participation among young people (Juelich and Coll 2021), and increasing the representation of women (Kropf 2021;Spencer, Hughes, and Richie 2015;Terrell, Lamendola, and Reilly 2021). Others have noted that by asking voters to make multiple choices rather than one, RCV may be complicated, require more information, and be tiresome for voters (Tolbert and Kutznetsova 2021).…”