Abstract:American democracy is struggling. Political polarization has exacerbated division within the electorate, while gerrymandering and hyper-polarization mean only a handful of elections are truly competitive. Voters feel increasingly disenchanted with the major parties and starved for choice. Hungry for solutions, states have turned to a particular form of Ranked Choice Voting called Instant Runoff Voting, now adopted in two states and on the ballot on more this fall. Its promise of greater choice holds intuitive appeal to those interested in improving American democratic institutions.This article sounds the alarm that the rush to reform by adopting Instant Runoff Voting may prove misguided. Well-intentioned advocates have backed a system that treats symptoms, not the root causes of democratic disfunction. We reframe the discussion in terms of robust electoral competition, evaluating voting systems on their incentive structures shaping the political positioning of candidates’ platforms and the extent to which those platforms are responsive to the will of the voters. On those metrics, we argue, the form of Ranked Choice Voting spreading across the country comes up short in much the same ways that our current plurality system fails.We provide a two-part corrective. On a theoretical level, we offer a framework that ties the representativeness of an electoral system to the degree to which it promotes political competition. We show how alternative voting systems can create stronger competitive pressures resulting in more representative election outcomes. On a practical level, we show an alternative Ranked Choice system called Condorcet voting could restore lost incentives within existing constraints. Unlike our current plurality system or Instant Runoff Voting, Condorcet voting ensures that a candidate preferred by a majority over others must win, thereby creating strong competitive pressures resulting in more representative outcomes. We map a feasible path toward revived democratic responsiveness.

Negative votes to depolarize politics

Opinion Polarization by Learning from Social Feedback

Polarization, Abstention, and the Median Voter Theorem

Dancing with Donald: Polarity in the 2016 Presidential Election

Preventing extreme polarization of political attitudes

The dynamics of strategic voting: pathways to consensus and gridlock

Voting with Limited Information and Many Alternatives

Robust Electoral Competition: Rethinking Electoral Systems to Encourage Representative Outcomes

Diversity, Agreement, and Polarization in Elections

Quantifying polarization across political groups on key policy issues using sentiment analysis

The Moderating Effect of Instant Runoff Voting

Polarization and Consensus by Opposing External Sources

Distortion Under Public-Spirited Voting

Mapping Election Polarization and Competitiveness using Election Results

Generalized Veto Core and a Practical Voting Rule with Optimal Metric Distortion

Beyond the Median Voter: How Affective Polarization Shapes Party Polarization in Multidimensional Ideological Spaces

Manipulating Elections by Changing Voter Perceptions

Candidate Incentive Distributions: How voting methods shape electoral incentives

Polarized Speech on Online Platforms in the American Political Context

Independents, not partisans, are more likely to hold and express electoral preferences based in negativity

Unanimity, Coexistence and Rigidity: Three Sides of Polarization