Cognitive Burden, Voting Systems, and Voter Satisfaction: How are they connected?

Brief #2 

Ryann Alonso, Whitney Hua, Lia Merivaki 

Our previous brief explored why we launched the Voting Systems and Voter Experience study—namely, to understand how our current plurality voting system often fails to capture the full range of voter preferences. This failure can leave voters feeling forced to vote strategically or opt out of participating altogether.

One alternative gaining traction is ranked choice voting (RCV), or instant runoff voting. Currently used in at least 51 jurisdictions across the U.S., RCV allows voters to rank candidates in order of preference. While RCV addresses many of plurality voting’s shortcomings, it also presents new challenges for voters. For instance, the shift from selecting a single candidate to ranking several can be confusing for voters unfamiliar with the format. Moreover, some RCV implementations can lead to exhausted ballots—ballots that no longer count because all ranked candidates have been eliminated.

Although voter confusion can be reduced through education efforts, data from RCV elections suggest that the system does not always fulfill its intended goal: ensuring that voters can fully express their preferences and have their votes count toward the outcome.

Importantly, RCV is not the only voting reform on the table. Other alternatives are designed to improve the voter experience and reduce cognitive burden, while still addressing the limitations of plurality voting:

• STAR Voting (Score Then Automatic Runoff): Similar to RCV in that it uses rankings, STAR voting allows voters to score each candidate (e.g., from 0 to 5). The two highest-scoring candidates then advance to an automatic runoff, and the finalist with more support wins. STAR voting seeks to avoid exhausted ballots and is currently used in Oregon for internal party elections.
  
  
  

• Approval Voting: Used in local elections in North Dakota and Missouri, this system allows voters to select as many candidates as they support—without ranking. Approval voting is widely recognized for its straightforward approach, making it easy for voters to understand and implement. One of its key advantages is its ability to eliminate the pressures and incentives for strategic voting, where voters feel compelled to choose a less preferred but more "viable" candidate to avoid "wasting" their vote. 

Our Research Question

How do voting systems shape citizens’ engagement with democracy?

All voting system reforms—no matter how well-intentioned—can deter participation if they are perceived as too complex. Systems that are more cognitively demanding than the familiar plurality format may discourage voters and undermine satisfaction with the democratic process.

At The Center for Election Science, we’re deeply invested in understanding how voting systems impact voter engagement. Our aim is to explore how different designs may reduce or exacerbate cognitive burden, and in turn, influence how people feel about elections and democracy as a whole.

We define satisfaction with democracy through four key components:

1. Voter Sentiment – How voters feel about the voting process.

2. Voter Trust – Whether voters believe their vote counted as intended.

3. Perceived Representativeness – Satisfaction with candidate options and with the election winner.

4. Intent to Participate – Likelihood of future political engagement.

Understanding Cognitive Burden through Experimentation

Despite growing interest in voting system reform, there's a lack of experimental research on how these systems affect cognitive load and democratic satisfaction. To fill this gap, we conducted an online survey experiment that randomly assigned participants to vote using one of four methods: Plurality Voting (our control group), Approval Voting, RCV, or STAR Voting. This experimental design allows us to measure how the varying complexity of alternative voting systems influences voter attitudes about elections relative to the status quo—and our baseline for comparison—plurality voting.

In brief, participants were asked to vote in a hypothetical primary with five candidates who differed in policy stances on taxation, immigration, and healthcare. Before casting their vote, participants received a detailed explainer about how to use the assigned voting method.

The table below summarizes how the four voting methods were explained and implemented in our study:

This structure allowed us to examine how participants navigated each system and how that experience shaped their perceptions.

Measuring Impact

After voting in a mock primary election, participants were asked if they found the system confusing—a key measure of cognitive burden. They were then asked a series of follow-up questions to assess the four elements of satisfaction with democracy previously described in this brief. These questions help us understand not just how the mechanics of voting affect attitudes, but how systems might influence future behavior and engagement.

What’s Next?

In our next brief, we will take a deep dive into the data and share findings from our two core research questions: 

1. How does the way we vote affect how we participate in elections?

2. How does the way we vote influence our broader attitudes toward democracy?

Ryann Alonso is a Research Assistant at CES. They are a MPP student at the McCourt School of Public Policy and a graduate from the University of Arkansas in 2018 with a BA in Political Communications, and a Truman Scholar.