Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Do political scientists find RCV increases or decreases voter turnout?
Executive Summary
Political scientists and empirical studies reach mixed but cautiously optimistic conclusions: several recent studies find that ranked-choice voting (RCV) is associated with modest increases in turnout in municipal and local elections, while other research finds little effect or context-dependent declines among particular groups. The strongest, most recent evidence points to turnout gains driven by greater campaign contact and changes in candidate entry, but important methodological caveats and subgroup differences mean the effect is not uniform [1] [2].
1. What advocates and critics both claim — the headline assertions that shaped the debate
Advocates argue that RCV increases turnout by making elections more competitive, reducing wasted votes, and encouraging candidate diversity and civility, which in turn motivates more voters to participate. Multiple reviews and advocacy-oriented summaries point to studies reporting turnout increases—one claim that RCV jurisdictions show roughly 17% higher municipal turnout and other single-case reports of double- or triple-normal participation in specific contests [3] [4]. Critics and some scholars counter that RCV can raise information costs and ballot complexity, depressing turnout among voters with fewer resources or lower civic skills, and that observed turnout changes are often driven by other factors like election timing or high-profile races [1]. Both sides rely on overlapping empirical sources but emphasize different mechanisms and case selections.
2. The most recent peer-reviewed work — tangible turnout increases tied to campaign behavior
A peer-reviewed study published in August 2024 finds statistically significant and substantively meaningful turnout increases in RCV jurisdictions and links those gains to increased direct voter contact by campaigns; the study uses administrative voter files and robust comparisons to similar non-RCV places [2]. A 2025 article and other analyses replicate or report similar positive associations in municipal settings, including findings that RCV does not lower turnout among people of color and may boost youth turnout [5] [1]. These more recent works emphasize mechanisms—campaign mobilization and candidate emergence—rather than attributing turnout solely to the voting method itself, strengthening the claim that RCV can produce turnout gains when it reshapes campaign incentives [2].
3. Why results are mixed — methodological limits and contextual drivers
Divergent findings stem from study design, case selection, and contextual variation. Cross-jurisdictional comparisons risk confounding by election timing, competitiveness, and concurrent ballot measures; single-case studies can overstate effects if the jurisdiction experienced unique events or high-profile races during RCV adoption. Some scholars demonstrate null or negative effects in specific settings, particularly where voters faced steep learning curves and where RCV was implemented in low-salience contests [1]. The literature repeatedly flags that measurement choices—aggregate vs individual-level turnout, short-term vs long-term effects—shape conclusions, making synthesis dependent on careful controls and diverse datasets [1].
4. Who wins and who loses — subgroup variation in turnout effects
Recent work probes racial and age subgroups and finds uneven effects. Several studies report increased turnout among youth and no declines among people of color, while other analyses show depressed participation among specific racial groups in some mayoral contests, suggesting variation by locality and outreach efforts [5] [1]. The August 2024 study notes campaigns in RCV places engaged in more direct contacting, which plausibly explains uplift among groups more reachable through mobilization; conversely, where such mobilization was absent, the cognitive burden of ballot ranking may have been a deterrent. The bottom line: subgroup outcomes depend on concurrent campaign behavior and local civic infrastructure, not solely the voting method [2] [1].
5. Mechanisms and plausible causal pathways — contact, candidate entry, and complexity
Researchers identify three causal pathways: increased campaign contact and mobilization, greater candidate entry/diversity that raises voter interest, and the informational/ballot complexity that can either mobilize or demobilize voters. Evidence from administrative records ties higher contact rates to turnout increases in RCV locales, supporting the mobilization pathway; other studies document more candidates and perceived vote efficacy under RCV, which can raise participation [2] [3]. At the same time, scholarship warns that higher information costs for voters unfamiliar with RCV can reduce turnout absent outreach, so the method’s net effect depends on whether mobilization and candidate dynamics outweigh complexity costs [1].
6. Bottom line and what researchers still need to settle the question
The preponderance of recent, carefully controlled studies points to a modest positive effect of RCV on turnout in municipal and local contexts when accompanied by active campaigning and voter education, but results are not universal and subgroup heterogeneity is real. Future work needs longer-term panels, randomized or quasi-experimental designs around adoption, and systematic reporting on voter education and campaign contact to isolate the voting method’s independent effect. Policymakers should treat RCV as a potentially turnout-enhancing reform contingent on implementation choices—education, outreach, and election timing—rather than a guaranteed turnout panacea [2] [1].