[EM] Keeping Candidates in Subsequent Rounds of Instant Runoff Voting
stepjak at yahoo.fr
Sat Aug 13 09:24:52 PDT 2016
It's not a stupid idea at all, it's intuitive and pleasing and I guess that many of us have thought of it. However, it damages one of IRV's major strengths, which means one can't propose it as a strict improvement.
The problem is that under IRV, you may vote "A>B" and have confidence that your vote for B will not be used until A is no longer an option. But if "eliminating" A does not mean that A is actually removed from contention, there is a possibility that your lower preference for B will help to elect B, when if you had only voted "A" (a bullet vote), the method would have elected A. This could cause voters to be more reluctant to express lower preferences.
This is not to say that I think the method is worse than IRV. It's just that it becomes a different type of method where there are a lot more ideas to compete with (many Condorcet methods, Bucklin, approval-elimination runoff, etc.).
De : York W. &/or Lois G. Porter <porter at kih.net>
À : election-methods at lists.electorama.com
Envoyé le : Vendredi 12 août 2016 15h24
Objet : [EM] Keeping Candidates in Subsequent Rounds of Instant Runoff Voting
Friday, August 12, 2016
3:05 pm CDT
I'm a big time "newbie" here. Wasn't able, for some reason, to search the
existing messages so I thought I'd stick my neck out and ask a probably
In the IRV election method, I don't understand the rationale of eliminating
the lowest vote getter in each round. In a simple example, let's say there
are four candidates. Let's say A, B, and C get thirty percent of the vote
on the first round. Candidate D gets ten percent. Normally Candidate D is
eliminated even though s/he might be the choice of 90 percent of folks in
the second round.
Wouldn't it make sense to simply just leave everyone in each round and
continue to run the tally until someone has a majortity? If more than one
candidate, if the thing drug out, got a majority, one could use the one
that was the "most popular" (had the greatest total) at that point. If
there was a tie after at least two candidates had a majority, one could use
I'm sure there is something I'm missing here but the eliminating of a
candidate that might be basically relatively popular and a good compromise
candidate seemed to be a problem to me. Apologies if this one is totally
stupid. I've searched on-line without success at finding the answer. One
expert wrote back that it would cause problems but didn't specify what the
problems would be. Any help clarifying this for me will be appreciated.
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Election-Methods