[EM] Consensus?: IRV vs. Primary w/Runoff

Bart Ingles bartman at netgate.net
Tue Jan 29 20:41:41 PST 2002

If talking about local non-partisan elections, I don't see much
difference.  Really, the math of IRV is so complex I don't see how you
can make many claims about it either way vs. a system as similar as
two-round runoff.  One drawback of IRV is the possibility of a
paradoxical outcome following a recount, or after including absentee
ballots.  This is not possible with two-round runoff because the runoff
election generally occurs well after any disputes from the first
election are settled.

With partisan elections, the primary functions as a fairly effective
clone-elimination step, probably more effective than a plain runoff.

Bart Ingles

Steve Barney wrote:
> Do we have a consensus that the instant runoff vote (IRV) is MATHEMATICALLY
> better than the common two step plurality vote (primary) with a follow-up
> runoff between the 2 top plurality vote getters? It seems to me that it cannot
> be worse, given that manipulation is bad. As far as I can see, the only
> mathematically provable difference between them is that IRV is less
> manipulatable. They share the same faults, including non-monotonicity. With 3
> candidates, I believe they are mathematically identical.
> =====
> "Democracy"?:
>         http://www1.umn.edu/irp/images/postcardAd2.jpg
> AR-NewsWI, a news service for Wisconsin animal advocates:
>         http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AR-NewsWI/

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list