Instant-runoff voting: Difference between revisions
Added clone independent category and note about candidate exit incentive
(Under "Further explanation," added link to the studies collected by the New America Foundation.) |
(Added clone independent category and note about candidate exit incentive) |
||
Line 266:
In normal [[runoff voting]], D and E are the two candidates with the most votes, preventing the majority's preferred candidates from entering the runoff. In FPTP, D has the most votes. But with IRV, first C is eliminated, and then E, and then B, resulting in A having 51 votes and winning. Note that though the 49 voter-minority preferred B to A, B didn't win; this is an example of IRV ignoring voter preferences in a way that can lead to some majorities (when looking at [[Head-to-head matchup|head-to-head matchups]]) having less power. However, the majority still got a better result than it would've had in some other methods.
IRV passes [[clone independence]] while [[FPTP]] doesn't. This is because if a candidate would receive a majority of votes, then [[Clone|cloning]] them will not allow any other candidate to receive a majority, because when all but one of the clones is eliminated, the remaining clone will have the same number of votes as if all of the clones hadn't run in the first place. However, James Green-Armytage found that despite IRV passing clone independence, allied candidates still have an incentive to exit the race.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.votingmatters.org.uk/ISSUE29/I29P1.pdf|title=Four Condorcet-Hare Hybrid Methods for Single-Winner Elections|last=Green-Armytage|first=J.}}</ref>
IRV is equivalent to [[runoff voting]] (supposing no change in preferences) when there are 3 or fewer candidates. This is used to argue both for and against it; advocates claim it is cheaper and easier for the voters to vote once, while opponents argue that a delayed runoff actually gives voters a second look into the candidates in the runoff, potentially improving the quality of their decision-making, and that because ranking candidates is harder than picking one candidate, that runoff voting is actually easier for voters. Note that though IRV is called instant runoff, this is more because it elects a candidate who could win or tie a runoff ([[pairwise beat]] or tie) against at least one other candidate, rather than because it is equivalent to runoff voting in all cases.
Line 643:
[[Category:Plurality-runoff voting methods]]
[[Category:Sequential loser-elimination methods]]
[[Category:Clone-independent electoral systems]]
| |||