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

VOTING; ELECTIONS; LOGISTIC regression analysis

Objective: Ranked choice voting [RCV] is currently seeing a spike in interest and is expanding in practice throughout the United States. However, the impacts and effects of RCV in the United States are not well understood and neither are the driving forces behind voters. engagement with it. This article explores what drives a voter's willingness to engage with ranking and to what extent. Methods: We use New York City exit poll data to analyze what increased the likelihood of voters to both participate in any ranking activity whatsoever as well as what drove voters to rank several candidates. Using both logistic and ordinal logistic regression we analyze how a voter's engagement with ranking is impacted by their socioeconomic background, their understanding of RCV, and campaign‐centered variables. Results: Our results show that wealthier, better educated, white voters who perceived a more positive campaign environment were more likely to engage in ranking. Gender, education, income, campaign tone, and being asked to rank a candidate as second or third are shown to be predictors of a voter's propensity to rank several candidates. Conclusion: Voters engage with RCV when they are provided with information on how RCV works and the benefits that come with it. Voters who perceive a more positive campaign environment and are explicitly asked by candidates to include them in their rankings are more likely to maximize their ranking activity. Practitioner Points: Ranked choice voting was successfully rolled out in NYC, but more voter education efforts are needed among minority voters.Cultivating a more positive campaign environment can increase participation with ranking activity.Candidates who ask voters to include them in their rankings, even if not the voter's first choice, are likely to be included in that voter's rankings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Social Science Quarterly (Wiley-Blackwell) is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)