Instant-runoff voting: Difference between revisions
→Criticisms
(→Notes) |
|||
Line 237:
== Criticisms ==
Many of the arguments against IRV can be summed up like this: if 1st choices alone don't show who the best candidate is (i.e. the [[FPTP]] winner), then they can't show who the worst candidate is either (the FPTP loser, the one that IRV eliminates in every round).
Though IRV is often praised for passing [[later-no-harm]], which is claimed to encourage voters to rank all of their preferences, it doesn't tend to use as much of the information provided by the voters as other ranked methods, such as [[Condorcet methods]]. This is a less extreme analog to how [[First Past the Post electoral system|first past the post]] technically passes [[later-no-harm]] by ignoring later preferences altogether. So IRV's [[later-no-harm]] compliance has to be evaluated in context of the other criteria it fails due to using less information than other methods - that is, there may be ambiguity to how much IRV is truly protecting a voter's interests by not using their later-preference information at all.
| |||