IRV vs Plurality Vote with a Runoff

[Bart Ingles]

DEMOREP1 at aol.com wrote:
> 
> Bart wrote--
> 
> In NYC the top candidate only needs 40% of the vote to avoid a runoff.
> Makes sense to me, since 40% is no more arbitrary than 50%.  I would
> gladly accept a strong plurality over a manufactured majority.
> ----
> D- Anything less than a majority is totally arbitrary since by definition ---
>  Majority > Minority (i.e. most pluralities).

But if no choice enjoys real support from a majority of voters, a runoff
won't change things.  Take the following example:

               Voter Rating / Utility
         100   <-supported / despised->   0
Votes    ----------------------------------
 49%      A                            B  C
 25%      B                            C  A
 26%      C                            B  A


Here the _arbitrary_ 50% runoff rule selects a candidate despised by 74%
of the voters, over one who has a near outright majority (and almost
double the number of true supporters).

The problem is that there is a fallacy of equivocation -- the word
"majority" is used twice, with two different meanings.  The manufactured
majority created by the runoff process is not the same thing as an
outright majority of first-choice votes.  I take the latter to be a much
stronger concept.

Thus the suggestion that a near outright majority is a stronger
statement of support than a "manufactured" runoff majority.


> Many current alleged *strong* plurality winners have lots of *insincere*
> votes --- President (popular votes) - Mr. Clinton 1992 and 1996 and Mr. Bush
> 2000.

...Abraham Lincoln in 1860, etc.   But holding a runoff election would
not have increased the number of *sincere* votes going to the eventual
winner.  It would only have added more *insincere* votes from people who
despised the top two candidates so much that they voted for sure losers
instead, under the current rules.

If runoff had been used over the years, who would have been on the list
of despised runoff winners?  The initials W, H and S (or C, H, and S)
come to mind.