- #36
- 4,133
- 1,735
I have never heard of Instant Runoff Voting. The system it describes is called, wherever I have heard it mentioned, Preferential Voting. Of course there is no right or wrong name for a concept, it's just that people from countries where the system is used, such as Australia, would not recognise this thread as talking about their system, since it uses an unfamiliar name.
Preferential Voting is set against the alternative of First Past the Post voting, which is what appears to be used in most countries. Interestingly, in the UK, when they not infrequently have widespread discontent at election results from their First Past the Post system, and public debate arises about alternative methods, Preferential Voting (referred to in this thread as IRV) is referred to as 'The Australian Method', even though there are plenty of other countries that use it.
I greatly prefer Preferential Voting to First Past the Post, because it prevents the phenomenon whereby a popular movement loses out because its vote is split between multiple candidates. Arguably, Al Gore would have easily won the 2000 presidential election if Ralph Nader hadn't stood, and thereby split the 'progressive' vote, which is a fatal outcome under First Past the Post. Again arguably, maybe Ross Perot did the same to the conservative side when he stood in 1992, leading to GHW Bush's loss.
There are a number of variants to Preferential Voting. Compulsory Preferential requires all candidates to be numbered. If any are missing, or if any number is used more than once, the vote is deemed invalid. Optional Preferential allows the voter to number any number of candidates, as long as they use the first n numbers, where n is the number of candidates they have marked. If they only mark one candidate they may use a tick or a cross rather than a '1' if they wish.
I was really interested to read in that link to Arrow's theorem about a system called Cardinality Voting, in which a voter has to give each candidate a score rather than a rank. It would generate a much richer flow of information about voter preference. Arrow did not include it in the systems he considered. I suspect the problem is it may not be very practical, and it would be easy for a vote to become hard to interpret if it was not written in a very clear hand.
Preferential Voting is set against the alternative of First Past the Post voting, which is what appears to be used in most countries. Interestingly, in the UK, when they not infrequently have widespread discontent at election results from their First Past the Post system, and public debate arises about alternative methods, Preferential Voting (referred to in this thread as IRV) is referred to as 'The Australian Method', even though there are plenty of other countries that use it.
I greatly prefer Preferential Voting to First Past the Post, because it prevents the phenomenon whereby a popular movement loses out because its vote is split between multiple candidates. Arguably, Al Gore would have easily won the 2000 presidential election if Ralph Nader hadn't stood, and thereby split the 'progressive' vote, which is a fatal outcome under First Past the Post. Again arguably, maybe Ross Perot did the same to the conservative side when he stood in 1992, leading to GHW Bush's loss.
There are a number of variants to Preferential Voting. Compulsory Preferential requires all candidates to be numbered. If any are missing, or if any number is used more than once, the vote is deemed invalid. Optional Preferential allows the voter to number any number of candidates, as long as they use the first n numbers, where n is the number of candidates they have marked. If they only mark one candidate they may use a tick or a cross rather than a '1' if they wish.
I was really interested to read in that link to Arrow's theorem about a system called Cardinality Voting, in which a voter has to give each candidate a score rather than a rank. It would generate a much richer flow of information about voter preference. Arrow did not include it in the systems he considered. I suspect the problem is it may not be very practical, and it would be easy for a vote to become hard to interpret if it was not written in a very clear hand.
