Is Instant Run-off voting basically useless?

[einniv]

First, thanks to GreenPartyVoter who posted about this several hours earlier in a response on another thread.

I assume most are familiar with the concept of instant run-off voting. The voter ranks the candidates in order of preference (1, 2, 3 etc).

In a series of rounds candidates with the lowest total is eliminated. Those that voted for the eliminated candidate go to their next choice and that is counted instead. This continues until someone has a majority.

This page brought up a point I had never considered, which is that it actually doesn't "solve" the 2-party system problem long term. As a case in point it pointed to Australia's 2 party system and they have had IRV since 1920.

Here are some quotes from the pages:

Assertion:
http://www.electionmethods.org/IRVing.htm

Also, with IRV, it will often be necessary for you to insincerely vote your 2nd choice in 1st place, to prevent someone worse from winning. But if you do that when, unknown to you, your 1st place could have won, then you'll give the election away to the 2nd choice. When you do that, your support for your 2nd choice _is_ making your 1st choice lose.


Example: (please don't gag too hard at his example ;-) )
http://www.electionmethods.org/IRVproblems.html

Suppose my true preference is for the Libertarian first and the Republican second. Suppose further that the Libertarians are the strongest "minor" party. At some round of the IRV counting process, all the candidates will be eliminated except the Republican, the Democrat, and the Libertarian. If the Libertarian then has the fewest first-choice votes, he or she will be eliminated and my vote will transfer to the Republican, just as I wanted. But what if the Republican is eliminated before the Libertarian? Unless all the Republican votes transfer to the Libertarian, which is extremely unlikely, the Democrat might then beat the Libertarian. If so, I will have helped the Democrat win by not strategically ranking the Republican first. But that's the same situation I'm in now if I vote my true preference for the Libertarian!

What happened in the above example is that IRV essentially ignored one of my key preferences. By voting (Libertarian, Republican, ..., Democrat), I increase the chances that the Republican will be eliminated before the Libertarian. If that then happens, my preference for the Republican over the Democrat is essentially discarded or ignored. This is the fundamental problem with IRV. The only preference that is sure to be counted is my first choice. The problem gets worse as the number of candidates increases. The outcome of the election can depend in a very quirky way on the order in which candidates are eliminated for having the fewest top-choice votes. The only way a voter can be assured of not wasting his or her vote is to rank one of the two major parties as their first choice, which is precisely what happens now under plurality voting.

The example is hardly contrived. The "lesser of two evils" problem is almost guaranteed to rear its ugly head again under IRV. Until a minor party is strong enough to win, a first-choice vote for them is essentially only symbolic. After a minor party is strong enough to win, on the other hand, a vote for them could have the same spoiler effect that it could have under the current plurality system. Hence, if IRV is ever actually adopted, we will likely remain stuck in the old two-party system, just as Australia still is, despite the fact that it has used IRV since around 1920. On the other hand, if minor parties do somehow manage to become competitive under IRV, they could wreak havoc with our entire system of government. As in our current system, the stronger a minor party becomes, the more it could hurt its own cause.



Aren't there places adopting this already in the US?

[einniv]

1. Another interesting quote...

The reason we have a two-party system in the United States is widely misunderstood. It is not because the Democrats and Republicans consistently have the best ideas, nor is it because the media or the debate commission shut out the other parties. We have a two-party system because our plurality voting system does not allow voters to fully specify their preferences. This fact is known as "Duverger's Law." To vote for minor parties, voters must effectively withdraw from the races between the two major parties, even though they may have a strong opinion on those races too. Voters who vote for minor parties essentially "waste" their votes and fail to oppose political movements they strongly disagree with. Protest votes may send a "signal," but the unfortunate reality is that they have virtually no direct effect on the actual outcome of elections -- and the indirect effect is usually contrary to the voter's intention.

[Cleita]

2. The Fairest Vote of All

Here's an article you might be interested in. Be forewarned, there is a fair amount of number crunching involved.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000637A4-DDB5-101E-990A83414B7F0123&chanID=sa006

Unfortunately, they aren't giving it out for free so if you are interested you may have to get an issue at the library or borrow from someone.

[einniv]

4. Well I gotta go pick it up now ...

after it teased me like that.

[cprise]

3. IRV is way better than what we have

...although some people latched onto it too soon and there appears to be at least one better system:

CONDORCET:

http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_logo_vote/Vote_on_voting_method

http://www.electionmethods.org/CondorcetEx.htm


Beyond that, I would be in favor a movement toward a parlaimentary or some other system that allows coalition governments to be built.