Difference between revisions of "Instant Runoff Voting"

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Undo revision 606962 by David Gerard (Talk) It is used more widly than that and if you don't understand it that is your problem)
Line 1: Line 1:
 
'''Instant Runoff Voting''', often referred to as "IRV", also known as the '''Alternative Vote''' (or "AV") <ref>[http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/votingsystems/systems2.htm#AV Voting Systems], UK Electoral Reform Society</ref>, is a system of voting designed to allow voter preferences below their first choice to be considered.
 
'''Instant Runoff Voting''', often referred to as "IRV", also known as the '''Alternative Vote''' (or "AV") <ref>[http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/votingsystems/systems2.htm#AV Voting Systems], UK Electoral Reform Society</ref>, is a system of voting designed to allow voter preferences below their first choice to be considered.
 
No-one understands it except Australians and New Zealanders, and not all of them.
 
  
 
==Method==
 
==Method==

Revision as of 23:21, 20 June 2010

Instant Runoff Voting, often referred to as "IRV", also known as the Alternative Vote (or "AV") [1], is a system of voting designed to allow voter preferences below their first choice to be considered.

Method

In IRV, a voter picks not only their first choice for an office, but gives a order of preference for the remaining candidates. When the polls close, if a candidate has 50% "+" of first choice votes, they win. If no candidate has reached this threshold, the candidate with the lowest number of votes is "removed", or excluded, and their votes are redistributed according to the ballots' second choice. The votes are re-tallied to see if a candidate has attained 50% "+" threshold. This process continues until one candidate reaches the threshold number of the votes, at which time a winner is declared.

The Australian Electoral Commission gives this example,[2] from the 1972 Federal election to the seat of McMillan, illustrating this point.

Round Armitage

(Liberal Party)

Buchanan

(Independent)

Hewson

(Country Party)

Houlihan

(Democratic Labour Party)

Mountford

(Australian Labor Party)

1

Redistributed votes

12025

810

3113

Excluded

8282

1980

3583

138

22802

185

2

Redistributed votes

12835

391

0 10262

3144

3721

Excluded

22987

186

3

Redistributed votes

13226

Excluded

0 13406

12690

0 23173

536

4

Redistributed votes

0 0 26096

Elected

0 23709

As can be seen, even though Hewson initially did not obtain the most votes (he was third), he won on the back of the preferences of the Country Party's ally, the Liberal Party, and those splitters the People's Popular Front of Judea Democratic Labour Party.

Potential benefits

IRV is seen as a potential boon to alternate or third party candidates in strong two-party systems, since a voter can pick their "real" choice without "throwing their vote away". Another benefit to small parties is that they can determine their "real" polling strength without damaging a larger party candidate that would be their choice over another large party candidate.

It also allows voters to truly "vote their conscience" rather than hold their nose and pick the lesser of two evils, while still indicating which of those lessers they could be more comfortable with.

Potential problems

One difficulty arising from IRV is the loose-knit coalitions that form, where parties agree to assist one another against one singled out party by printing "how to vote cards" with that party in last place on all cards. This is really only viewed as a problem by people who support the party being singled out. A typical occurrence is the Australian party "One Nation", which has appeared last on most party's how to vote cards, due to its extreme anti-immigration position and poor economic platform (they once proposed printing more money as a solution to budget deficits). As One Nation has never won a House seat, this is probably a good thing.

Another problem that is less to do with the system, but more how it is implemented, is that, on occasions, during the recount, the winner changes. Generally, the electoral commission will attempt to get a result on the night of the election and will start redistributing votes before they are all counted. If it is a close contest on who comes last, the order of redistribution can effect the final outcome of the election. As a result, there is usually a mandatory recount where the redistribution is checked in full to ensure that the result is correct.

Donkey vote

In systems where Instant Runoff Voting exists, there is the potential for a donkey vote, where the voter simply numbers all of the boxes in order they appear. This is not so much a problem with the system, as a problem with the voter, but it does mean that the votes are skewed towards the order of the names on the ballot paper. This problem is greatest in countries such as Australia that combine IRV with mandatory voting. As a result a lottery is usually held to determine the order of the candidates on the voting sheet.

Examples where it might have been illuminating

Recent examples of how this might have made U.S. presidential politics clearer include Nader voters in 2000 being able to support Gore as a second choice, or Perot voters in 1992 being able to show their preference between Bush and Clinton at some point on their list.

Real world implementations

Some jurisdictions have implemented Instant Runoff Voting. The only countries to have set it up on a national level are Australia (in the House of Representatives, at both the state (except Tasmania, those wily devils) and federal level), Ireland (for President), Papua New Guinea (for Parliament), and Fiji (for the House of Representatives).

See also

External links

Footnotes