The Case for IRV (Instant-Runoff Voting)
Instant-runoff voting (or IRV) is a voting system used for single-winner elections in which voters can rank candidates in order of their preference. In an IRV election, if no one candidate receives a majority of first choice votes, the candidate with the fewest number of votes is eliminated, and ballots cast for that candidate are then redistributed to the remaining candidates according to the ranked preference that the voter has indicated. When the votes are tallied, should no candidate reach the required 51 percent of votes that would ensure an actual mathematical majority then the candidate with the fewest number of votes is eliminated and those votes are reapplied to the remaining candidates based on the number 2 choice as indicated by the voter.
With IRV, no longer is the voter asked to select one "lesser of two evils" and, in the case of the major-party, oftentimes low-turnout primaries, we would be left with a candidate that best represents the choice of the people.
Instant-runoff voting would invigorate the election process, as it would afford the voter the chance to vote by picking the candidate they honestly feel would be the best person for the job and not get caught up in worrying about a wasted vote or who they think is might be the winner. This would be a great way to get people back into the political process.
Instant runoff voting is much fairer than the current “vote for one” system. It would surely shake-up Rhode Islands political landscape.
la_mouffette
2:32 pm on Thursday, September 27, 2012
lmao, Lizard People for Mayor!
English first
7:50 am on Friday, September 28, 2012
What does this mean?
no regr allia b
7:26 pm on Thursday, September 27, 2012
I prefer the Mole People, they are heard but not seen and lets face it, not as slimy as the lizards or our current politicians.
Lorraine F
7:42 pm on Thursday, September 27, 2012
All kidding aside, this is an important issue for RI.
Look what the current system brought us. Four candidates ran for governor, and we got the worst of the four.
no regr allia b
8:29 pm on Thursday, September 27, 2012
I don't know Lorraine, it seems like a lawyers dream sytem and a voters nightmare to me. In anycase it does not seem to be the one person one vote since you may not want your vote moved to another canidate which for me also means another layer for fraud in the system. I don't know. To many problems I see with this I guess, oh well.
Lorraine F
9:47 pm on Thursday, September 27, 2012
no regr
The mathematics of probabilities aside, I understand there are some downsides. Take a look at the outcome of 1860 (Lincoln) under a runoff in which Lincoln would have lost.
http://www.whydomath.org/node/voting/instant_runoff.html
Steve Chessin, President, Californians for Electoral Reform
12:29 am on Thursday, October 4, 2012
Lorraine F: Leaving aside the question as to whether the "extrapolation" by Riker (to obtain rankings out of the 1860 voting data in order for someone to rerun that election as an IRV election) is reasonable, and ignoring the fact that the article to which you link also assumes a national election by popular vote (that is, one that ignores the Electoral College), one should never base the choice of an electoral system because it would elect or defeat a particular candidate.
It is arguable that Lincoln Chafee would still have been elected Governor had RI used IRV in 2010 instead of plurality (see my next comment for my analysis). What IRV would have guaranteed was that the winner, whether Chafee or Robitaille, was the choice of a majority of the voters; it would also have made clear how large a mandate that winner would have had.
Steve Chessin, President, Californians for Electoral Reform
12:35 am on Thursday, October 4, 2012
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhode_Island_gubernatorial_election,_2010 and http://www.ri.gov/election/results/2010/general_election/races/103.html there were seven (not four) candidates for Governor. Had IRV been used, even if all the voters for Algieri, Block, Giroux, and Lusi had ranked Democrat Caprio as their next choice, he would still have been in third place, behind Republican Robitaille and Independent Chafee.
Just based on party identification, I would guess that most of the voters for Democrat Caprio would have ranked Independent Chafee as their next choice, above Republican Robitaille. While Chafee was a Republican before he became an Independent, according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln_Chafee he did support Obama in 2008.
But I could be wrong, and enough of the Caprio and minor candidate supporters might have ranked Robitaille above Chafee so that Robitaille would have won. The point is that IRV would have made clear which candidate was preferred by the majority of the voters, as well as how strong a mandate that winner had.
Steve Chessin, President, Californians for Electoral Reform
12:42 am on Thursday, October 4, 2012
no regr allia b: Every single court that has considered IRV has ruled that it is constitutional and consistent with "one person one vote". Each voter has the same voting power as every other voter. No voter has more voting power than any other voter. No voter had less voting power than any other voter.
If you don't want your vote moved to a particular candidate, you just don't include that candidate in your rankings. If you don't want your vote moved to any other candidate, you only rank the one candidate you like. No one forces you to rank candidates you don't like. You just risk having no say in the final outcome if all the candidates you like are eliminated because not enough other people like them.
Leave RI
9:08 am on Friday, September 28, 2012
Oh yeah..I get it like voting for Miss America.."and the runner up likes world peace and long walks on the beach and puppies"
Gerard ONeill
9:50 am on Friday, September 28, 2012
Instant runoff voting might literally leave the majority's first choice eliminated on the first round.
A better way would be One Vote Per Person Per Candidate. AKA Check Boxes vs Radio Buttons.
The great thing about this change is that the party system can be eliminated (since voting by party is an option). And additional ways of voting that may be more natural for people are opened up (issue voting, general acceptability, etc).
Then we can get rid of government sponsored primaries.
Pros: Save money, eliminate wasted vote, reduce the power (psychologically and politically) of the party structure, and allow voting based on cross cutting concerns such as party, issue, likability.
Neg: A better first choice might be overshadowed by a more popular but less consistent second choice.
But that is what education is for!
Steve Chessin, President, Californians for Electoral Reform
1:09 am on Thursday, October 4, 2012
Gerard: By definition, if a majority of the voters have the same first choice, instant runoff voting will elect, not eliminate, that person on the first round.
As for the system you describe (it's called Approval Voting), it has the following drawback: Suppose there are three candidates running, A, B, and C. You (and enough of your friends to make a difference) really like A, B is barely acceptable to you, and you can't stand C. Do you vote just for A, or for both A and B?
Suppose polling data shows it's close between A and B, with C trailing. Clearly you'd vote just for A. But if it's a close three-way race? If you and your friends vote for A and B, you'll probably elect B, but if you only vote for A, then A might win, or C might win. What to do? (And what to do if there is no polling data?)
IRV doesn't have that drawback. You can rank A first and B second without worry. If A has enough support to win, A will win; otherwise, your vote will go to B.