Elections are more than math

Three math professors have released a report claiming to show that ranked-choice voting is superior to the traditional election process. While interesting, their analysis relies on dubious assumptions. The worst of these is that elections are nothing more than a simple math problem involving only votes and candidates. But in fact, electoral processes create incentives that nudge and shape the entire political ecosystem.

Take just one example: coalitions. Some electoral systems create powerful incentives to build large and lasting coalitions. That effect is not captured in election data, and the math professors’ paper makes no reference to coalitions or coalition building at all. The professors criticize traditional American elections because a candidate can win with a plurality, yet seem entirely ignorant of how this supports compromise and coalition building.

This kind of narrow analysis is how the South got kudzu, a non-native invasive species that can grow up to one foot per day. Soil experts rightly pointed out that the Asian plant could help with erosion, but they missed the bigger picture and caused serious ecological damage.

Another oddity in the professors’ analysis is their attack on “strategic voting,” which they even label “dishonest voting.” This happens when someone votes for a candidate based, at least in part, on perceptions about who can win. This could also be called “compromise voting” or simply “living in the real world.” As long as there are voters with unpopular preferences, they will face the choice of either voting for a loser or compromising and voting for someone who might win. Is it really a benefit if RCV lets these voters do both on the same ballot?

The mathematics of an election process is one piece of a larger puzzle. What matters most about election rules is not their effect on a single election, but their effect over many elections. Analysis that considers elections independently, and nothing more than the math of an election, will always miss the bigger picture—and risk pushing a harmful “solution” like RCV.