Talk:Instant Runoff Voting

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Icon politics.svg

This voting systems related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Editorial notes
  • Possibly worth expanding on account of the AV vote in the UK. Yes, I am still bitter about it...

Archives for this talk page: , (new)

Not down here...[edit]

re this edit, it should be noted that NZ does not have instant run off voting. Acei9 23:36, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Another good reason to revert. You have mixed-members right? - π 23:40, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
yup. Acei9 23:42, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
D'oh! Oh well. I meant to get across that the typical voter doesn't understand it even where it's used - David Gerard (talk) 00:12, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
The typical voter doesn't even understand most simpler systems. I understand IRV, although only from reading about it. ħumanUser talk:Human 01:05, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


Let me know if this isn't the right place but those campaign points are practically PRATTs now. ADK...I'll edify your TK! 14:29, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

One likely outcome[edit]

'I will vote for (Monster Raving Loony Party/other offbeat candidate of choice, and my 'real' party second...'

Having an elected chamber composed entirely of 'fun party MPs' (who have received 90%+ of the votes each) would be interesting. (talk) 15:41, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Goddamn this is a good idea[edit]

Have any studies ever been done on the economics of this thing? In the US this could amount to huge savings and efficiency in money, as well as time. And since you are voting for more than one candidate for the same office, it's hard for anyone to feel pissed-off or disenfranchised cause their guy lost. nobsGary Johnson for Rehab! 14:02, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

While instant runoff is better than first past the post (say yes to one person, the one with most yes wins), there are way better systems. Instant runoff assumes every candidate below the best rated at your opinion is equal. So at an 100 voters election if candidate A has 2 first place votes and 98 last place vote he is better candidate B that has 1 first place vote and 99 second place vote. There is also the problem where you pick the worst candidate using the one with least amount of first place votes, instead of using the one with most amount of last place votes (an information you have), so you basically ask "who is the candidate less people consider the best?" and pick him instead of asking "who is the candidate more people consider the worst" and pick him. (talk) 02:27, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Why I Like This Best[edit]

Doesn't have the MAJOR disparities of first past the post, allowing minor parties to grow but not extreme ones as proportional/semi-proportional systems do, and there is only one election day unlike two-round voting. -Bigljbigl (talk/stalk) 09:00, 24 July 2017 (UTC)