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

Bart Ingles bartman at netgate.net
Tue Jan 29 21:07:16 PST 2002

Forest Simmons wrote:
> Another angle just occurred to me: a simulation of the two step runoff
> might be preferable to the IRV simulation of the many step runoff.

I believe this is what is known in Britain as the "supplemental vote". 
The other problem here is that you need to anticipate which backup
choice will survive to the runoff round.  Otherwise both of your choices
could be eliminated at the outset.

Which raises the question: with fully-ranked IRV, could your best
ranking strategy for lower choices depend on which candidates are
eliminated first?  Stupid question, I guess.  If your sure-loser
favorite survives long enough to eliminate a pushover threat, who is
then eliminated in favor of the top two candidates, you can rank
sincerely.  Otherwise you need to be sure and bury the pushover threat,
and rank your lesser-evil-of-the-top-two choice first or second.


> Among other reasons, it would be more obvious in the two step runoff that
> the simulation doesn't eliminate the need to rank a fully viable candidate
> as your first choice to keep your viable compromise from being eliminated
> on the first step.
> Some IRV proponents still believe that with IRV everyone can safely give
> their fantasy candidate a go, because their compromise will automatically
> still be in the running when it comes time for their vote to transfer.
> [When everyone thinks that way their compromise candidate gets squeezed
> out by the fantasy candidates.]
> So this two step runoff would make obvious the importance of getting down
> to serious business on the first step, which is not so obvious under IRV,
> but just as true under IRV.
> Don't get me wrong. I'm not advocating this two step runoff simulation.
> I'm just saying it probably would not be as bad as IRV.
> Forest

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list