—2—
A COMAP Modeling Module
Voting Model
LESSON NOTES
Activity 1: Plurality Models
Activity 1 opens with a general description of the basic ele‑
ments in a voting model.
Question 1 shows the popular vote totals for the 2016 pres‑
idential election. The plurality winner was Hillary Clinton.
However, Donald Trump won the election based on a
majority of the Electoral College votes. Presidential elections
are run by the states. Most states use the plurality method
to decide the winner for their state – and except in Maine
and Nebraska, the winner gets all of that state’s Electoral
College votes. There are 538 Electoral College votes up for
grabs and 270 are needed to win. For more information,
have students check out this site:
www.archives.gov/electoral‑college/about
Question 2 turns to the 2022 race for Alaska’s State House
seat in District 11. You can revisit this race in Activity 3 (see
Lesson Notes), because Alaska is one of two states that uses
rank‑choice voting to decide many of its races. However, for
question 2 the winner is determined by the plurality model
and students discover a flaw in that model. Given there were
two Republican candidates in this race, Republican voters
split their votes between them and, using the plurality
model, the winner would be the Independent candidate.
Question 3 focuses on a 2019 recall election for the mayor
of Fall River, Massachuses. Jasiel Correia was recalled by
61% of the voters and then re‑elected as mayor by a plurality
due to the presence of four opposition candidates.
Question 4 presents results from a 1970 New York Senate
race. There were three candidates in this race, which was
decided by a plurality. However, a majority of the voters
rated the winner last. Analysis of this race is continued in
question 5 where voter preferences for the candidates are
represented with preference diagrams. Students will work
with preference diagrams again in Activity 3.
Question 6 deals with the 1992 Presidential race between
Bill Clinton, George H.W. Bush, and Ross Perot. In analyzing
this election, students find that the plurality model flaw does
not occur even though there are more than two candidates.
Consider using question 7 as a discussion or reflection ques‑
tion. Given that the plurality model is the method used to
determine the winners of most elections in the United States,
make sure that students understand one of its major flaws:
In a race with more than two candidates, the plurality
winner could be the candidate that is disliked by a majority
of the voters. The plurality model may not be the best way
to decide winners of an election. When a flaw is discovered
in a model, it’s time to look for a beer model. So this ques‑
tion is a good lead in to Activity 2, where students are intro‑
duced to the runoff voting model.
Activity 2: Runoff Models
The runoff model is explained at the start of Activity 2.
Questions 1 – 4 deal with the 2020 and 2022 elections for
Senator in Georgia. In Georgia, if no candidate in a race gets
a majority, then the top two candidates compete in a runoff
election. One flaw in runoff models is that fewer voters tend
to participate in the runoff election compared to the general
election. They are also expensive to run, which is noted in
the In the News excerpt following question 4.
Question 5 is based on the runoff model used in North Car‑
olina for primary elections. The threshold percentage that
triggers a runoff election is reduced from 50% (as used in
Georgia) to 30%. You might ask students if the North Caro‑
lina runoff model would have changed the results of the Fall
River mayoral election from Activity 1, question 3.
Question 6 summarizes the flaws in runoff models. Discuss
this with the class and allow them to make suggestions for
a beer model.
Activity 3: Rank‑Choice Voting Models
Activity 3 begins by examining Maine’s 2018 election for the
U.S. House of Representatives. Question 1 walks students
through the steps of rank‑choice voting that led to Jared
Golden being elected to the U.S. House of Representatives
from District 2 over the incumbent Bruce Poliquin, even
though Poliquin was first‑choice among the most voters.
Figure 3.1 shows a sample ballot for this race. Maine voters
are allowed to rank up to five candidates (the 5
th
candidate
is a write‑in candidate) according to their preferences. Each
voter can select as few or as many choices as they want, but
each choice has to be a different candidate.
As of 2022, Alaska has adopted rank‑choice voting. Before
students begin question 2, revisit Activity 1, question 2,
which gives the results in the race for Alaska House from
District 11, which are shown below.
In Activity 1, question 2 students determined that the plu‑
rality winner was the Independent candidate, Featherly. The
two other candidates, both Republican, split the Republican
vote and ended up with fewer votes than the Independent
candidate. As noted in the solutions to this question, a
Featherly win would probably upset most of the 4,187 voters
(54.58% of the voters) who selected a Republican candidate.
However, that’s not what happened in this race. Due to
rank‑choice voting, Bieling was eliminated in Round 1. For
Candidate Party Votes Percentage
Featherly, Walter T. Independent 3,484 45.42%
Bieling, Ross P. Republican 1,186 15.46%
Coulombe, Julie Republican 3,001 39.12%
