When the Second Vote Decides

<jats:title>Abstract</jats:title> <jats:p>The majority-vote requirement was initiated in jurisdictions lacking two-party competition in order to ensure that officeholders have a broader base of support and as a check against undesirable candidates who could secure a plurality but lack majority support. Runoffs and other two-stage formats like the instant runoff, also known as ranked choice voting (RCV), and top two systems are examined using multiple election datasets and interviews with individuals who have participated in runoffs. Candidates who lead the initial round win about 70 percent of the runoffs. Candidates with stronger initial performances are especially likely to win runoffs. Incumbents tend to have less success in runoffs than leaders in open seat contests. Despite claims that runoffs are discriminatory, there is little evidence to show that the adoption of the majority-vote requirement or its implementation makes the election of underrepresented groups less likely. Criticisms directed at runoffs, i.e., that participation declines and that holding a second election is costly, are evaluated. Traditional runoffs, RCV, and plurality elections are compared on more than twenty dimensions. Factors considered include the likelihood of incumbent defeats, the share of the electorate participating in selecting the winner, the amount of rancor in campaigns, and the likelihood of choosing a Condorcet winner.</jats:p>