Comparing Voting Methods: 2016 US Presidential Election
Herrade Igersheim (),
François Durand (),
Aaron Hamlin and
Jean-François Laslier ()
Additional contact information
François Durand: Nokia Bell Labs [Paris-Saclay]
Aaron Hamlin: Center for election science
PSE Working Papers from HAL
Before the 2016 US presidential elections, more than 2,000 participants participated to a survey in which they were asked their opinions about the candidates, and were also asked to vote according to different alternative voting rules, in addition to plurality: approval voting, range voting, and instant runoff voting. The participants were split into two groups, a first one facing a short set of four candidates (Clinton, Trump, Johnson and Stein), and a second one facing a long set of nine candidates (the previous four plus Sanders, Cruz, McMullin, Bloomberg, and Castle). The paper studies three issues: (1) How do U.S. voters effectively use these alternative rules? (2) What kind of candidates, in terms of individual preferences, is favored by which rule? (3) Which rules empirically satisfy the independence of irrelevant alternatives? Our results evidence that Bernie Sanders stands out as the "best" candidate in terms of individual preferences (using any standard criterion), and that evaluative voting rules such as approval voting and range voting might lead to this outcome, contrary to direct plurality and instant runoff voting (that elects Clinton) and to the official voting rule (that elected Trump).
Keywords: Approval voting; range voting; instant runoff; strategic voting; US Presidential election (search for similar items in EconPapers)
New Economics Papers: this item is included in nep-cdm and nep-pol
Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-01972097
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: Track citations by RSS feed
Downloads: (external link)
Working Paper: Comparing Voting Methods: 2016 US Presidential Election (2018)
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.
Export reference: BibTeX
RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan)
Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:hal:psewpa:halshs-01972097
Access Statistics for this paper
More papers in PSE Working Papers from HAL
Bibliographic data for series maintained by CCSD ().