The document discusses the potential impact of ranked choice voting on the 2016 U.S. presidential election, suggesting that Bernie Sanders would likely have won under such a system. It highlights voter dissatisfaction with the current two-party system and provides analysis based on computer models and polls. The author advocates for the implementation of ranked choice voting to better represent voters' interests.

1. 1/20/2018 4:41 PM, p. 1democracygps.org
Bernie Sanders would likely
be president with ranked
choice voting
Chris Krenn, Ph.D.
1/15/18
Copyright © 2017 by Christopher Krenn
democracygps.org
democracygps <at> gmail.com

2. 1/20/2018 4:41 PM, p. 2democracygps.org
Voters are frustrated, but have not
yet given up or irreversibly polarized
>85% polled think the two-party
presidential election system is
not working
[AP-NORC, 2016]
Voting rates have not
changed much in 100 years
[fairvote.com, 2016; electproject.org, 2014]
Polarization is
increasing, but
there is still a
large population
of moderates
[Pew, 2014]
Political Ideology, 1970-
2015

3. 1/20/2018 4:41 PM, p. 3democracygps.org
Ranked choice voting allows voters to rank
their choice of political candidates
Democrats, Republicans, Independents, Greens,
and Libertarians have supported ranked choice
voting in elections from Maine to California
http://www.votedifferentsantafe.com/
Mock Election ballot for
“Mayor of Animal Town”

4. 1/20/2018 4:41 PM, p. 4democracygps.org
We are looking forward, not backward…
This study is not trying to question the
actual outcome of the 2016 Presidential
election. It is trying to answer the following
questions:
"What would have happened in 2016 if
ranked voting was used?", and
"Should the United States use ranked
voting in the future?"

5. 1/20/2018 4:41 PM, p. 5democracygps.org
We use computer models based on
actual election results and a May 2017
nationwide poll
1457 total responses
1262 completed (87%)
54% female
46% male
Age:
Not representative of the
general population, but
of an online population
Copy of the poll is still open: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/dgps-irv-p5

6. 1/20/2018 4:41 PM, p. 6democracygps.org
All major candidates were included:
Carson, Sanders, Trump, McMullin, Johnson, Clinton, Stein,
Kasich, Rubio, & Cruz

7. 1/20/2018 4:41 PM, p. 7democracygps.org
Poll results Hawaii model Utah model
Number of voters in each state model
are changed to match the 2016
November election results
This method uses a national poll to estimate state
results

8. 1/20/2018 4:41 PM, p. 8democracygps.org
Uncertainty is estimated by choosing
different groups of voters in each model
(Utah shown here)
Model #1 Model #2 Model #3
This method uses a national poll to estimate state
diversity

9. 1/20/2018 4:41 PM, p. 9democracygps.org
A typical electoral map result:
◼: flipped Clinton to
Sanders
◼: stayed Trump
◼: flipped Trump to
Sanders
◼: Stayed Clinton

10. 1/20/2018 4:41 PM, p.
10democracygps.org
Instant run-off simulations give a variety
of results for many states

11. 1/20/2018 4:41 PM, p.
11democracygps.org
Sanders beat Trump in
electoral votes >99% of the
time
Sanders and Clinton
totaled >269 electoral votes
together in 99.9% of the
models examined
Sanders won electoral college in 85% of
20,000 models examined
90% chance
outcome falls in
these ranges

12. 1/20/2018 4:41 PM, p.
12democracygps.org
Biases between online and general populations
and due to “buyers’ regret” could shift some states
from Sanders to Trump and Clinton
But, Trump had a projected 20% chance of
winning in 2016, and we project less than a 1%
chance with ranked voting
The two-party primary system did not represent
the “will of the people” well in the 2016
presidential election
Ranked choice voting is more likely to represent
voters’ interests
We recommend implementing ranked choice
voting in more elections
Conclusions

13. 1/20/2018 4:41 PM, p.
13democracygps.org
Analysis of alternate ranked voting methods (e.g.
“Schultze” and “MDDA”)
More detailed description of uncertainty analysis
and “convergence” of numerical simulations
More detailed analysis of poll results
Public release of polling and simulation data
Still to come…

14. 1/20/2018 4:41 PM, p.
14democracygps.org
Acknowledgements and References
2016 electoral results taken from:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United
_States_presidential_election,_201
6
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/el
ections/2016/exit-polls
Visualizations and charts inspired
by fivethirtyeight.com
Survey done using
surveymonkey.com
Male/female symbols from aiga.org
High contrast colors from S.
Trubetskoy:
https://sashat.me/2017/01/11/list-
of-20-simple-distinct-colors/
APNORC:
http://www.apnorc.org/PDFs/Voting
/APNORC_Elections_Topline.pdf
ElectProject:
http://www.electproject.org/2014g
FairVote:
http://www.fairvote.org/research-
and-analysis/voter-turnout/
Pew: http://www.people-
press.org/2014/06/12/political-
polarization-in-the-american-public/

15. 1/20/2018 4:41 PM, p.
15democracygps.org
Chris Krenn is a computational physicist and
metallurgist working near San Francisco since
2001 and has been exploring electronic
democracy systems since 2013. He has a B.S.
from Yale and a Ph.D. from U.C. Berkeley.
About the author