Santa Clara's choice

David Marsay djmarsay at
Fri Oct 16 07:38:48 PDT 1998

In belated response to:
> From:          Mike Ositoff <ntk at>
> Subject:       Santa Clara's choice

> Runoff has a definite & concrete way in which it's better than
> FPP: If a CW makes the runoff, he can't lose. That means that,
> while a CW needs to get the most votes to win in FPP, he onlly
> needs to come in 1st or 2nd in Runoff. That's a concrete
> improvement. 
> I don't know of anything like that which can be said for IRO,
> in comparison to FPP. 

I have just posted some criteria which AV/IRO meets but FPP doesn't. 
I think the main one is to do with throwing out 'tyrants'. I note 
that Runoff meets this criteria where one has a second ballot, 
because there will still be an opponent left who then beats the 
tyrant.  Technically, 'avoiding vote-splitting' seems like a nice 
condition, which AV/IRO meets but FPP and Runoff do not.

> You never hurt your upper choices by voting for your lower
> choices? No, not unless you try to protect those lower choices
> from elimination :-)

What do you think of the tactical voting criteria I posted?
> I'm not saying that it can be said that Runoff is definitely
> better than IRO. When things are so different they're difficult
> to compare.

And I am not (yet?) saying the converse. But I think my criteria are 
somehow more natural than yours.

By the way, in the UK I don't think Runoff would give a different 
winner from FPP very often. AV/IRO would make a difference more 
often, and would favour a moderate candidate. Until politics adapt to 
the new rules, that is!

Sorry, but apparently I have to do this. :-(
The views expressed above are entirely those of the writer
and do not represent the views, policy or understanding of
any other person or official body.

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list