A joint Politics and Economics series |
Social choice and electoral systems |
---|
![]() |
![]() |
Instant-runoff voting (IRV; US: ranked-choice voting (RCV), AU: preferential voting, UK/NZ: alternative vote) is a single-winner ranked voting election system where one or more eliminations are used to simulate multiple runoff elections. In each round, the candidate with the fewest first-preferences (among the remaining candidates) is eliminated. This continues until only one candidate is left. Instant runoff falls under the plurality-with-elimination family of voting methods,[1] and is thus closely related to rules like the two-round runoff system.[2][3]
Instant-runoff voting has found some use in national elections in several countries, predominantly in the Anglosphere. It is used to elect members of the Australian House of Representatives and the National Parliament of Papua New Guinea, and to elect the head of state in India, Ireland, and Sri Lanka.
The rule was first studied by the Marquis de Condorcet, who was the first to analyze it and show it could eliminate the majority-preferred candidate (Condorcet winner).[4][5][6][7] Since then, instant-runoff voting has been criticized for other mathematical pathologies (discussed below), including its ability to eliminate candidates for having too much support or too many votes.[8] Like first-preference plurality (FPP), instant-runoff is vulnerable to a kind of spoiler effect called a center squeeze,[9][10] which causes it to favor uncompromising alternatives over more-moderate ones,[11][12][13][14] encouraging polarization.[15]
Advocates of instant-runoff voting often argue these properties are positive, as voting rules should encourage candidates to appeal to their core support or political base rather than a broad coalition.[16] They also note that in countries like the UK without primaries or runoffs, instant-runoff voting can prevent spoiler effects by eliminating minor-party candidates, because it avoids some kinds of vote-splitting by nearly identical (clone) candidates. IRV has also been described as a natural extension of the two-round system or primary elections that avoids multiple rounds of voting.[17]
En effet, lorsqu'il y a plus de trois concurrents, le véritable vœu de la pluralité peut être pour un candidat qui n'ait eu aucune des voix dans le premier scrutin.
The method was, however, mentioned by Condorcet, but only to be condemned.
As with simple plurality elections, it is apparent the outcome will be highly sensitive to the distribution of candidates.
However, ranked-choice voting makes it more difficult to elect moderate candidates when the electorate is polarized. For example, in a three-person race, the moderate candidate may be preferred by a majority of voters to each of the more extreme candidates. However, voters with far-left and far-right views will rank the candidate in second place rather than in first place. Since ranked-choice voting counts only the number of first-choice votes (among the remaining candidates), the moderate candidate would be eliminated in the first round, leaving one of the extreme candidates to be declared the winner.
As with simple plurality elections, it is apparent the outcome will be highly sensitive to the distribution of candidates.
the 'squeeze effect' that tends to reduce Condorcet efficiency if the relative dispersion (RD) of candidates is low. This effect is particularly strong for the plurality, runoff, and Hare systems, for which the garnering of first-place votes in a large field is essential to winning
However, squeezed by surrounding opponents, a centrist candidate may receive few first-place votes and be eliminated under Hare.
This method is a perfectly feasible and practicable one for elections on any scale ... [i]t is a simple and obvious extension of the French system...
© MMXXIII Rich X Search. We shall prevail. All rights reserved. Rich X Search