4,208
edits
Instant-runoff voting: Difference between revisions
→Naming: Copied and adapted "Renaming 'preferential voting'" section from FairVote article
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 (based on 1st choice votes; see [[Ranked ballot|ranked ballot]]) is eliminated in each round until someone receives a [[simple majority|majority]] of votes. 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 US, 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 name=":0">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]], 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]].
Line 588:
One simple way to modify IRV to address many of the issues IRV opponents have without changing IRV fundamentally is to allow voters to approve candidates (using an [[approval threshold]]). If there are any majority-approved candidates, elect the most-approved of them, otherwise run IRV. Even if voters [[Favorite Betrayal|Favorite Betray]], they can still approve their honest favorite, giving that candidate a chance to still win. In addition, this allows voters to better avert the [[center squeeze effect]]. The standard argument made by IRV advocates against [[Approval voting]], that it fails [[later-no-harm]], has little to no relevance to this modification, since voters seeking to avoid hurting their favorite candidates' chances of winning in the approval round can simply refrain from approving anyone, forcing the election to run under IRV rules.
== Naming ==
Prior to FairVote's work, the single-winner version of [[single transferable vote]] was primarily used outside of the United States (e.g. in Australia), and was known in Australia as "preferential voting".
In commentary published in the New York Times in 1992, John Anderson referred to the single-winner system as "majority preferential voting".<ref>{{Cite news|last=Anderson|first=John B.|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1992/07/24/opinion/break-the-political-stranglehold.html|title=Opinion {{!}} Break the Political Stranglehold|date=1992-07-24|work=The New York Times|access-date=2020-04-30|language=en-US|issn=0362-4331}}</ref>
In 1993, the Center for Voting and Democracy (now known as "[[FairVote]]") published their first annual report. In that report, they referred to the system as "preference voting",<ref>https://web.archive.org/web/19990507180316/http://www.fairvote.org/cvd_reports/1993/introduction.html</ref> which included the following caveat:<blockquote>''A Note on Terminology: Reflecting the range of contributors, this report has some inconsistencies in terminology to describe different voting systems. In addition, what many call the "single transferable vote" here is termed "preference voting" in order to focus on the voting process rather than the ballot count.''</blockquote>In 1997, FairVote began referring to preferential voting as "Instant Runoff voting".<ref>[https://www.csmonitor.com/1997/0721/072197.opin.opin.1.html "Fuller, Fairer Elections? How?"]. ''Christian Science Monitor''. 1997-07-21. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Standard_Serial_Number ISSN] [https://www.worldcat.org/issn/0882-7729 0882-7729]<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">2019-12-14</span></span>.</ref><ref>From [https://web.archive.org/web/19990427031915/http://www.fairvote.org/email_archives/070298.htm the 1998 newsletter]: "Note that the transferable ballot can be used as a proportional representation system in multi-seat districts (what we call "choice voting") and in one-winner elections (what we call "instant runoff voting")."</ref> However, the city of San Francisco preferred the term "ranked-choice voting", which was used as early as 1999.<ref>http://archive.fairvote.org/library/statutes/irv_stat_lang.htm San Francisco Charter Amendment, introduced October 1999 "SEC. 13.102. RANKED-CHOICE BALLOTS"</ref><ref>Instant Runoff Voting Charter Amendment for San Francisco passed on March 5, 2002, "''to provide for the election of the Mayor, Sheriff, District Attorney, City Attorney, Treasurer, Assessor-Recorder, Public Defender, and members of the Board of Supervisors using a ranked-choice, or “instant run-off,” ballot, to require that City voting systems be compatible with a ranked-choice ballot system, and setting a date and conditions for implementation.''"</ref> By 2004, San Francisco was careful to explain that the method codified as "ranked choice voting" was the same as "instant runoff voting.<ref name=":0" /> Because organizations in Arizona borrowed San Francisco's language, many used "ranked choice" as the preferred wording, which [[FairVote]] accommodated as early as 2006.<ref>"[https://web.archive.org/web/20060927205517/http://www.fairvote.org/rcv/ FairVote and the LWV-Arizona Support Ranked Choice Voting]" Dr. Barbara Klein and Rob Richie</ref> [[FairVote]] didn't appear to publicly deprecate the term "instant runoff voting" until 2013,<ref>The [https://web.archive.org/web/20130729141521/http://www.fairvote.org/ July 2013 homepage of fairvote.org] was the first to refer to "ranked choice voting" as a preferred term to "instant-runoff"</ref> but now appears to prefer "ranked choice voting" to describe the method.
==See also==
| |||