Instant-runoff voting: Difference between revisions

Line 3:

When the [[single transferable vote]] (STV) [[voting system]] is applied to a single-winner election it is sometimes called '''instant-runoff voting''' (IRV), as it is much like holding a series of [[runoff voting|runoff]] elections in which the lowest polling candidate is eliminated in each round until someone receives [[simple majority|majority]] vote. IRV is often considered independently of multi-winner STV because it is simpler and because it is the most widely advocated electoral reform in the United States.

Outside the USA, IRV is known as the '''[[Alternative Vote]]''', '''[[preferential voting]]''', '''single-winner STV''', or the '''[[Thomas Hare|Hare]] System''', though there is room for confusion with some of these terms since they can also refer to STV in general. In the US, IRV is also known as '''Ranked Choice Voting''' ('''RCV'''), a term preferred by election officials in San Francisco in 2004 because it election results were not instant, and voters are responsible for ranking candidates.<ref>As described on a [https://web.archive.org/web/20040514072509/http://www.ci.sf.ca.us/site/election_page.asp?id=24269 City of San Francisco election page in 2004] "''Is 'ranked-choice voting' the same as 'instant runoff voting'? In San Francisco, ranked-choice voting is sometimes called 'instant run-off voting.' The Department of Elections generally uses the term ranked-choice voting, because it describes the voting method—voter are directed to rank their first, second and third choice candidates. The Department also uses the term ranked-choice voting because the word 'instant' might create an expectation that final results will be available immediately after the polls close on election night. But the term 'instant run-off' does not mean instantaneous reporting of results—the term means that there is no need for a separate run-off election.''"</ref>

Outside the USA, IRV is known as the '''[[Alternative Vote]]''', '''[[preferential voting]]''', '''single-winner STV''', or the '''[[Thomas Hare|Hare]] System''', though there is room for confusion with some of these terms, since they can also refer to STV in general. In the US, IRV is also known as '''Ranked Choice Voting''' ('''RCV'''), a term preferred by election officials in San Francisco in 2004 because election results were not instant, and voters are responsible for ranking candidates.<ref>As described on a [https://web.archive.org/web/20040514072509/http://www.ci.sf.ca.us/site/election_page.asp?id=24269 City of San Francisco election page in 2004] "''Is 'ranked-choice voting' the same as 'instant runoff voting'? In San Francisco, ranked-choice voting is sometimes called 'instant run-off voting.' The Department of Elections generally uses the term ranked-choice voting, because it describes the voting method—voter are directed to rank their first, second and third choice candidates. The Department also uses the term ranked-choice voting because the word 'instant' might create an expectation that final results will be available immediately after the polls close on election night. But the term 'instant run-off' does not mean instantaneous reporting of results—the term means that there is no need for a separate run-off election.''"</ref>

Instant-Runoff Voting was invented around 1870 by American architect [[William Robert Ware]]. Ware was not a mathematician, thus never subjected his election method to any rigorous analysis. He evidently based IRV on the single winner outcome of the [[Single Transferable Vote]] or STV developed in 1855 originally by [[Carl Andrae]] in [[Denmark]]. It was introduced into [[England]] in 1857 by the [[barrister]] [[Thomas Hare]], where it earned public praise from [[John Stuart Mill]], an English philosopher, member of parliament, and employee of the [[British East India Company|East India Company]].

Instant-Runoff Voting was invented around 1870 by American architect [[William Robert Ware]], who simply applied Hare's method to single-winner elections.<ref>{{Cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=W7QRAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA192|title=Application of Mr. Hare's system of voting to the nomination of overseers of Harvard College.|last=Ware|first=William R.|date=1871|publisher=|year=|isbn=|location=|pages=|oclc=81791186|quote=It is equally efficient whether one candidate is to be chosen, or a dozen.}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://archive.fairvote.org/articles/reilly.pdf|title=The Global Spread of Preferential Voting: Australian Institutional Imperialism|author=Benjamin Reilly|publisher=FairVote.org|accessdate=17 April 2011}}</ref> Ware was not a mathematician, thus never subjected his election method to any rigorous analysis. He evidently based IRV on the single winner outcome of the [[Single Transferable Vote]] or STV developed in 1855 originally by [[Carl Andrae]] in [[Denmark]]. It was introduced into [[England]] in 1857 by the [[barrister]] [[Thomas Hare]], where it earned public praise from [[John Stuart Mill]], an English philosopher, member of parliament, and employee of the [[British East India Company|East India Company]].

IRV is used to elect the Australian House of Representatives, the lower houses of most of Australia's state parliaments, the President of Ireland, the Papua New Guinea National Parliament, and the Fijian House of Representatives. See below for a more detailed list.

Line 26:

{| border=1

{| class="wikitable" border="1"

!City

!Round 1

Line 66:

Here are some approaches to consider, individually and combined. The first class of rules allows many candidates to be eliminated at the first count regardless of actual ties. These are practical rules before the first round that reward stronger candidates among the full set of competition. Such rules won't likely affect the winner but they will reduce the number of elimination rounds and thus the number of opportunities for ties to develop. A second class of rules consider actual ties that can't be avoided.

* '''Consider ~~multicandidate~~ elimination of weak candidates as the first step:'''

* '''Consider multi-candidate elimination of weak candidates as the first step:'''

** CANDIDATE COUNT: Define a maximum number of candidates that can survive the first round.

*** Example top-two

Line 101:

In the Pacific, the single-member variant is used for the Fijian House of Representatives. Papua New Guinea has also decided to adopt it for future elections, starting in 2007. The Fijian system has been modified to allow for both "default preferences", specified by the political party or candidate, and "custom preferences", specified by the voter. Each political party or candidate ranks all other candidates according to its own preference; voters who are happy with that need only to vote for their own preferred candidate, whose preferences will automatically be transferred according to the ranking specified by the candidate. Voters who disagree with the ranking, however, may opt to rank the candidates according to their own preferences. In the 2001 election, about a third of all voters did so. The ballot paper is divided by a thick black line, with boxes above (for the default options) and below (for customized preferences).

The countries mentioned above all use STV for some or all of their municipal elections. Starting in 2004, some municipal areas in New Zealand also adopted STV to elect mayors (by the single-member variant) and councilors (by the ~~multimember~~ variant). Political parties, cooperatives and other private groups also use STV and/or IRV.

The countries mentioned above all use STV for some or all of their municipal elections. Starting in 2004, some municipal areas in New Zealand also adopted STV to elect mayors (by the single-member variant) and councilors (by the multi-member variant). Political parties, cooperatives and other private groups also use STV and/or IRV.

The single winner version of IRV is also used to select the winning bid of both the Summer and Winter Olympics in the International Olympic Committee.

Line 142:

This is considered a weakness by the advocates of a more [[deliberative democracy]], who point to the French system of presidential election where such between-round dealings are heavily exploited and useful (they say) to draw together a very factionalized electorate. However, critics of the French runoff system point to the dreaded "votez escroc, pas facho" (vote for the crook, not the fascist) phenomenon, which awarded Chirac an undeserved landslide victory in 2002.

''The ~~australian~~ system also allows minority parties to have key planks of their platforms included in those of the major parties by means of so-called "preference deals". This is seen as legitimate political activity. If enough people care about (for instance) green party issues that that party's second preference can swing the vote, then it is fair enough that it have some limited say in policy.''

''The Australian system also allows minority parties to have key planks of their platforms included in those of the major parties by means of so-called "preference deals". This is seen as legitimate political activity. If enough people care about (for instance) green party issues that that party's second preference can swing the vote, then it is fair enough that it have some limited say in policy.''

''Another advantage of runoff voting is that it allows a "protest vote" to be made without penalty. A person voting for a minority party doers not "throw their vote away", as with first-past-the-post systems, so allowing the electorate to send clear signals to the major parties.''

Line 177:

Voting turnout would resemble the following:

{| border=1

{| class="wikitable" border="1"

!38% of voters

Line 199:

|}

In IRV, the compromise (choice C) is eliminated immediately. Choice B is elected, giving severely lower total satisfaction ~~amongst~~ voters than choice C.

In IRV, the compromise (choice C) is eliminated immediately. Choice B is elected, giving severely lower total satisfaction among voters than choice C.

'''Failure to count the ballots in a way most favorable to the voters'''

{| border="1"

{| class="wikitable" border="1"

!26% of voters

!25% of voters