Instant Runoff Voting

What really happens behind the curtain?

A personal opinion…

Choices, choices…Voting methods…

Plurality – One vote per person. The candidate with the most votes wins. Most common, used for centuries.

Borda Count – Voters rank the candidates to the 8th; first choice, second choice, etc. Candidate with most votes wins.

Approval Voting (AV) – Voters ranks as many as they wish. Candidate with most votes wins.

Condorcet Method – Election by pairings of two candidates, i.e. most preferred

First-past-the-post and more….

Tactical Voting…. “Compromising

(useful)”

“Burying”

“Push-over”

“Shot gunning”

“Myerson-Weber Strategy”

Tactical voting

has been

compared

to

“making the ballot into a non-trivial game”

Instant Runoff Voting or IRV…(aka Preferential voting)

Voter ranks the candidates, 1st choice, 2nd choice, etc. up to __#__places.

Ballots are sorted by 1st choice candidates; valid ballots are counted.

The sum of valid ballots becomes the total valid vote, i.e. 325.

The quota for election shall be a simple majority, i.e. 325 ÷ 2. (Total valid vote ÷ 2)

Used at the 1st District Republican Convention, April 2008

IRV cont…

If there is no clear winner, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated; each of his ballots are redistributed to the next valid choice.

Ballots are then counted again. The process of elimination and redistribution is repeated until a candidate attains majority.

Example of IRV – If there are 21 valid ballots,

a candidate needs 11 votes to win

#Voters 1st Round

2nd Round

3rd Round

I. 7 A, B, C, D A=7 A=13

II. 6 B, A, C, D B=6

III. 5 C, B, A, D C=8

IV. 3 D, C, B, A D=0

RD 1 “D” is eliminated. RD 2 “B” is eliminated. RD 3 “A” is elected.

IRV – If 21 valid ballots, candidate needs 11 votes to win

#Voters

1st Round

2nd Round

3rd Round

I. 7 A, B, C, D A=7

II. 6 B, A, C, D B=6 B=11

III. 5 C, B, A, D C=5

IV. 3 D, D=0

RD 1 “D” is eliminated. RD 2 “C” is eliminated. RD 3 “B” is elected.

Fair Vote?

“Consider an IRV election with three candidates, A, B, and C. Let's say candidate A receives 40 first-choice votes; candidate B

receives 35 and candidate C receives 25.

Since no candidate received 51% of first-choice votes, candidate C is eliminated and those 25 ballots are re-counted for second

choice votes and a new total is then tallied.

If 16 of those votes go to candidate B, and 9 go to candidate A; candidate B is declared the winner with 51 votes.

In this example, those voters who preferred candidate C had their first and second choices counted while those voters who

preferred candidate A had only their first choice votes counted.

This clearly indicates a flawed system.”

Source: Minnesota Voters Alliance, www.mnvoters.org

1st District Convention Delegate Nominees 4/5/08:

1. Burdick, Donald G.2. Casey, Gary A.3. Conrad, David4. Crosnoe, Sandra5. Dahm, Nathan6. Dahm, Travis7. Dau, Peggy8. Davies, Robert9. Davis, Nathan10. Ford, Michael11. Haworth, Patrick12. Malinowski, Patricia Mary13. Malinowski, Stephan Joseph

14. McDonald, Andrew15. Medlock, Cheryl16. Medlock, Chris17. Peters, Jake18. Rodriguez, Christina19. Ruffin, Kristin20. Ruffin, Sandra21. Sippel, Megan22. Underwood, Ryan Charles23. Walsh, Brittany24. Walsh, James G.25. Wiland, George

Bolded Yellow italics indicates winners

1st District Nominees for Alternate Delegate and National Elector

Alternate Delegate:

Buchannan, Jerry

Jones, Nolan

Mohorovicic, Joy

National Elector:

Chrisco, Virginia

Williamson, Lawrence A.

Bolded Yellow italics indicates winners

The infamous Slip of PaperFound on the floor after the elections at the 1st Dist. Convention 4/8/08

After the 2008 1st Dist. Conv. elections were over, this slip of paper was found on the floor of the convention hall, under a chair in the “establishment” area.

Out of a field of 33 candidates and historic voter turnout, only these people were elected. (Certain attendees knew to vote this “slate”; the rest voted per the given instructions.)

Using the IRV voting method, was “tactical voting” used to get these 7 people elected? A: Yes.

No one is questioning whether the winners had prior knowledge of a secret slate. Only the IRV method is in question, i.e. can the IRV method be manipulated by tactical voting?

In my opinion….and others… System is too

complicated/takes too many people to count

Touted by “self-indulgent intellectuals”

Results cannot be repeated (It won’t be done)

Some ballots count more than others.

People vote more than once; cast multiple votes*

Some ballots only get counted once, while others are counted 2 or more times*

Get different results vs. plurality, Borda, etc. voting

Cannot recount/audit the results

Disenfranchises voters who cannot understand

Room for error

* Indicates opinion from Minnesota Voters Alliance, www.mnvoters.org

Sample: Nashville wins! But…

“While any Condorcet method will elect Nashville as the winner, if instead an election based on the same votes were held using first-past-the-post or instant-runoff voting, these systems would select Memphis[2] and

Knoxville[3] respectively. This would occur despite the fact that most people would have preferred Nashville to either of those

"winners". Condorcet methods make these preferences obvious

rather than ignoring or discarding them.”

Illustration just to indicate that voting methods can change the outcome.

Only “Experts” explain the results….

You DARE Question the

Great OZ?

End of my opinion