Editing Negative responsiveness (section)

=== Runoff voting ===
{{see also|center squeeze}}
[[Instant-runoff voting|Runoff-based voting]] systems such as [[Instant-runoff voting|ranked choice voting (RCV)]] are typically vulnerable to perverse response. A notable example is the [[2009 Burlington mayoral election]], the United States' second [[Instant-runoff voting|instant-runoff election]] in the modern era, where [[Bob Kiss]] won the election as a result of 750 ballots ranking him in last place.<ref name=":522">{{Cite journal |last1=Graham-Squire |first1=Adam T. |last2=McCune |first2=David |date=2023-06-12 |title=An Examination of Ranked-Choice Voting in the United States, 2004–2022 |journal=Representation |volume=61 |language=en |pages=1–19 |arxiv=2301.12075 |doi=10.1080/00344893.2023.2221689}}</ref> Another example is given by the [[2022 Alaska's at-large congressional district special election|2022 Alaska at-large special election]].

An example with three parties (Top, Center, Bottom) is shown below. In this scenario, the Bottom party initially loses. However, they are ''elected'' after running an ''un''successful campaign and adopting an ''un''popular platform, which pushes their supporters away from the party and into the Top party.
{| class="wikitable"
|+
! colspan="3" |Popular Bottom
!
! colspan="3" |Unpopular Bottom
|-
!
!Round 1
!Round 2
!
!
!Round 1
!Round 2
|-
!'''''Top'''''
|<s>25%</s> {{Xmark}}
|
!+6%
!'''''Top'''''
|31%
|46%
|-
!'''''Center'''''
|30%
|'''55%''' {{Tick}}
!↗
!'''''Center'''''
|<s>30% {{Xmark}}</s>
|
|-
!'''''Bottom'''''
|45%
|45%
!-6%
!'''''Bottom'''''
|39%
|'''54% {{Tick}}'''
|}
This election is an example of a [[center-squeeze]], a class of elections where instant-runoff and [[Plurality voting|plurality]] have difficulties electing the majority-preferred candidate. Here, the loss of support for Bottom policies makes the Top party more popular, allowing it to defeat the Center party in the first round.