[EM] Vermont IRV is nonstandard

James Gilmour jgilmour at globalnet.co.uk
Tue Feb 25 04:43:43 PST 2003

>Jan wrote
> Subject: [EM] Vermont IRV is non-standard
> Note that the method described above immediately reduces the field to "the
> two candidates with the greatest number of first choices."  According to the
> IRV rules I'm familiar with, candidates should be eliminated one at a time.

"Vermont IRV" MAY fall within the definition of "IRV", especially if the emphasis
is put on the "Run-off" part and the "top-two only" rule is carried over.
However, it certainly falls outwith the accepted use of the Single Transferable
Vote applied to single-seat elections.  One (small) consolation is that every
voter will get a chance to decide the race between the top two candidates, no
matter how far down the list of preferences they had put them.  This is an
important improvement over the highly defective two-vote system used to elect the
Mayor of London (England).

Perhaps this restriction has been proposed to maintain continuity with current
local run-off practice?  Or perhaps some of the proponents believe their parties
will do better this way?

> There are a number of scenarios where standard IRV could get different
> results than the variation described above.

This is very true.  But maybe that explains the politics?


For more information about this list (subscribe, unsubscribe, FAQ, etc), 
please see http://www.eskimo.com/~robla/em

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list