How Voting Rules Impact Legitimacy

Last registered on January 26, 2024
View Trial History

Pre-Trial

Trial Information

General Information

Title
How Voting Rules Impact Legitimacy
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0007871
Initial registration date
June 24, 2021

Initial registration date is when the trial was registered.

It corresponds to when the registration was submitted to the Registry to be reviewed for publication.

First published
June 25, 2021, 1:41 PM EDT

First published corresponds to when the trial was first made public on the Registry after being reviewed.

Last updated
January 26, 2024, 8:16 AM EST

Last updated is the most recent time when changes to the trial's registration were published.

Locations

Country
Switzerland
Region
Zurich

Primary Investigator

Name
Carina Ines Hausladen
Affiliation
ETH Zurich
Contact Primary Investigator

Other Primary Investigator(s)

PI Name
Evangelos Pournaras
PI Affiliation
University of Leeds
Contact Investigator
PI Name
Dirk Helbing
PI Affiliation
ETH Zurich
Contact Investigator
PI Name
Renato Kunz
PI Affiliation
ETZ Zurich
Contact Investigator
PI Name
Regula Hänggli
PI Affiliation
Université Fribourg
Contact Investigator
PI Name
Junling Wang
PI Affiliation
ETH Zurich
Contact Investigator

Additional Trial Information

Status
Completed
Start date
2021-07-01
End date
2021-07-31
Keywords
Behavior, Governance
Additional Keywords
Social choice theory, Democracy, Legitimacy, Voting rules, Human subject experiment, COVID-19
JEL code(s)
D70, D71
Secondary IDs
EK 2021-N-28
Prior work
This trial does not extend or rely on any prior RCTs.
Abstract
Collective action is essential for addressing the grand challenges of our time. However, for such action to be successful, decision-making processes must be perceived as legitimate. In this study, we investigate the legitimacy of different voting methods.

Using a pre-registered human subject experiment, 120 participants cast their votes using four voting methods: majority voting, combined approval voting, score voting and modified Borda count. These methods represent a range of preference elicitation designs, from low to high complexity and flexibility.
Furthermore, we developed a legitimacy scale upon which the participants rate the voting methods.
The experiment was conducted in a non-political setting (voting on colour preferences) and a political context (voting on COVID-19-related questions).

Our findings suggest that the perceived legitimacy of a voting method is context-dependent. Specifically, preferential voting methods are considered more legitimate than majority voting in political decision-making, but only for individuals with well-defined preferences.

Furthermore, preferential voting methods are more legitimate than majority voting in a highly polarized situation.
External Link(s)
SSRN

Registration Citation

Citation
Hausladen, Carina Ines et al. 2024. "How Voting Rules Impact Legitimacy." AEA RCT Registry. January 26. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.7871-1.1
Sponsors & Partners

Sponsors

Experimental Details

Interventions

Intervention(s)
The intervention follows a between-subjects design: Participants provide legitimacy ratings at three different stages of the experiment. The ratings vary w.r.t. context and whether they were provided after voting or examining outcomes of the vote.
Intervention Start Date
2021-07-01
Intervention End Date
2021-07-31

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)
The main dependent variable is a participant's (self-reported) legitimacy rating.
Primary Outcomes (explanation)
Legitimacy is proxied by the concepts of fairness, trust, influence and acceptance. More precisely, participants are asked: "I would comply with the result and accept it as fair reflecting my and others' opinions."

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)

Experimental Design

Experimental Design
The experiment has three main stages. At each stage, participants provide legitimacy ratings, varying the context and action preceding the rating.
In stage I, participants vote upon a trivial, non-critical context (their favourite colour). Subsequently, they provide legitimacy ratings.
In stage II, participants vote upon a complex, critical context (COVID-19). Subsequently, they provide legitimacy ratings.
Finally, in stage III, participants observe the outcome of the vote and subsequently provide legitimacy ratings.
Experimental Design Details
Randomization Method
Randomization is done by a python-based algorithm.
Randomization Unit
As there is no treatment involved, no randomization of allocating participants to treatments is necessary. What is randomized is the order of the different questions and within questions their respective options, that participants vote upon.
Was the treatment clustered?
Yes

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters
200–300 participants
Sample size: planned number of observations
Each participant provides 16 votes (4 questions* 4 voting methods) and 24 legitimacy ratings (4 + 4 + 16).
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
200–300 participants
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
Two-sample t-test power calculation n = 30.4263 d = 0.8449776 sig.level = 0.05 power = 0.9 alternative = two.sided NOTE: n is number in *each* group
Supporting Documents and Materials

Documents

Document Name
Preprint
Document Type
other
Document Description
This is the preprint of the paper.
File
Preprint

MD5: d1e840c17c66e5c0f85da484ed4e06fd

SHA1: f09178e9e99c575d5750259670b0e5e8338f422e

Uploaded At: April 06, 2023

There is information in this trial unavailable to the public. Use the button below to request access.

Request Information
IRB

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)

IRB Name
ETH Ethics Commission
IRB Approval Date
2021-06-22
IRB Approval Number
EK-2021-N-28-A
Analysis Plan

Post-Trial

Post Trial Information

Study Withdrawal

There is information in this trial unavailable to the public. Use the button below to request access.

Request Information

Intervention

Is the intervention completed?
Yes
Intervention Completion Date
July 31, 2021, 12:00 +00:00
Data Collection Complete
Yes
Data Collection Completion Date
July 31, 2021, 12:00 +00:00
Final Sample Size: Number of Clusters (Unit of Randomization)
120
Was attrition correlated with treatment status?
Yes
Final Sample Size: Total Number of Observations
120
Final Sample Size (or Number of Clusters) by Treatment Arms
120
Data Publication

Data Publication

Is public data available?
Yes
Public Data URL
https://github.com/carinahausladen/LegitimacyVotingMethod

Program Files

Program Files
Yes
Program Files URL
https://github.com/carinahausladen/LegitimacyVotingMethod
Reports, Papers & Other Materials

Relevant Paper(s)

Reports & Other Materials