Instant-runoff voting

**Valigarmander** · 03-03-2011, 10:03 PM

A friend of mine in the UK informed me that there's a referendum coming up there to change the voting system from first-past-the-post (the highest-polling candidate is elected) to instant runoff (voting is ranked, i.e. you mark candidates in order of preference). I decided to look it up, and it seems pretty interesting.

If instant-runoff voting were to be implemented in the UK (or hypothetically the US, or wherever else), do you think it would be a good thing? To me, it sounds like at the very least it would make voting for third parties more viable. Any thoughts?

Sim Kid · 03-03-2011, 11:02 PM

I hear they may actually be implmenting this on a small scale out here. Which in this case means "in the town I'm living in".

It would be a bit more friendly for third-parties, though.

***CaptHayfever*** · 03-03-2011, 11:05 PM

^Which is one of my favorite aspects of it. (You ninja'd me, man.)

Instant runoff is more susceptible to manipulation (though manipulating an election with several million voters is still intensely difficult without flat-out breaking the law), but it also tends to result in a more widely-agreeable winner.

Another similar option would be check-mark voting: You check all the candidates you like & only leave the ones you can't stand. Most checks wins.

And remember, "I'm-a Luigi, number one!"

***Cosmonautical*** · 03-03-2011, 11:49 PM

Australia uses a form of this voting method. I approve of it, as it manages to sustain more than a dual party system.

Kargath · 03-05-2011, 09:43 PM

I <3 preferential voting. Letting independents and third parties in without causing 'spoiler' effects is great.

**Deku Trii** · 03-05-2011, 10:09 PM

That's a pretty cool idea.

***The Doctor*** · 05-02-2011, 08:05 AM

So apparently in a leaflet I got, it says that Australia are trying to get rid of it, is this true?

Kargath · 05-02-2011, 08:08 AM

Australia uses a system in the lower house (that no-one is trying to get rid of) that:
* is compulsory
* is based around electorates with even population
* is preferential. You number all candidates from 1 (best) down to whatever is the last number. If no-one has 50% + 1 vote, the lowest-voted candidate is eliminated, then all their votes are redistributed. Each vote goes to the next highest preference on that vote. Keep eliminating the bottom and redistributing until someone gets 50%+1.

I love preferential voting, it actually gives minor parties a chance and eliminates the phenomenon of 'vote splitting'.

Your two major parties would be against it because they *know* they are over-represented in the parliament.

***CaptHayfever*** · 05-03-2011, 01:23 AM

^How are the votes redistributed, evenly or by re-vote?

And remember, "I'm-a Luigi, number one!"

Kargath · 05-03-2011, 04:20 AM

Each vote is always allocated to the candidate that:
* is still standing
* has the highest number on that particular vote

03-03-2011, 10:03 PM	#1
Valigarmander The Bee's Knees Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: The land of rain and trees (Oregon) Gender: Posts: 29,755 Thanks: 1,649 Thanked 5,700 Times in 2,580 Posts Blog Entries: 20	Instant-runoff voting A friend of mine in the UK informed me that there's a referendum coming up there to change the voting system from first-past-the-post (the highest-polling candidate is elected) to instant runoff (voting is ranked, i.e. you mark candidates in order of preference). I decided to look it up, and it seems pretty interesting. If instant-runoff voting were to be implemented in the UK (or hypothetically the US, or wherever else), do you think it would be a good thing? To me, it sounds like at the very least it would make voting for third parties more viable. Any thoughts?

03-03-2011, 11:02 PM	#2
Sim Kid Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: The state of Denial Gender: Posts: 8,884 Thanks: 80 Thanked 198 Times in 122 Posts	I hear they may actually be implmenting this on a small scale out here. Which in this case means "in the town I'm living in". It would be a bit more friendly for third-parties, though.

03-03-2011, 11:05 PM	#3
*CaptHayfever* Smash SuperMod Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: (n) - the place where I am Gender: Posts: 27,661 Thanks: 1,991 Thanked 2,486 Times in 1,513 Posts	^Which is one of my favorite aspects of it. (You ninja'd me, man.) Instant runoff is more susceptible to manipulation (though manipulating an election with several million voters is still intensely difficult without flat-out breaking the law), but it also tends to result in a more widely-agreeable winner. Another similar option would be check-mark voting: You check all the candidates you like & only leave the ones you can't stand. Most checks wins. And remember, "I'm-a Luigi, number one!"

03-03-2011, 11:49 PM	#4
*Cosmonautical* Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: I rub my tilde all over your asterisk Gender: Posts: 28,100 Thanks: 2,151 Thanked 5,338 Times in 2,433 Posts	Australia uses a form of this voting method. I approve of it, as it manages to sustain more than a dual party system.

03-05-2011, 09:43 PM	#5
Kargath et in Arcadia ego Join Date: Jul 2001 Gender: Posts: 8,334 Thanks: 1,226 Thanked 780 Times in 488 Posts	I <3 preferential voting. Letting independents and third parties in without causing 'spoiler' effects is great.

03-05-2011, 10:09 PM	#6
Deku Trii PP&R Mod Current Events Mod Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Texas Gender: Posts: 9,031 Thanks: 521 Thanked 1,099 Times in 583 Posts	That's a pretty cool idea.

05-02-2011, 08:05 AM	#7
*The Doctor* The Last Timelord. Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: In the TARDIS Gender: Posts: 13,880 Thanks: 915 Thanked 656 Times in 426 Posts Blog Entries: 1	So apparently in a leaflet I got, it says that Australia are trying to get rid of it, is this true?

05-02-2011, 08:08 AM	#8
Kargath et in Arcadia ego Join Date: Jul 2001 Gender: Posts: 8,334 Thanks: 1,226 Thanked 780 Times in 488 Posts	Australia uses a system in the lower house (that no-one is trying to get rid of) that: * is compulsory * is based around electorates with even population * is preferential. You number all candidates from 1 (best) down to whatever is the last number. If no-one has 50% + 1 vote, the lowest-voted candidate is eliminated, then all their votes are redistributed. Each vote goes to the next highest preference on that vote. Keep eliminating the bottom and redistributing until someone gets 50%+1. I love preferential voting, it actually gives minor parties a chance and eliminates the phenomenon of 'vote splitting'. Your two major parties would be against it because they know they are over-represented in the parliament.

05-03-2011, 01:23 AM	#9
*CaptHayfever* Smash SuperMod Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: (n) - the place where I am Gender: Posts: 27,661 Thanks: 1,991 Thanked 2,486 Times in 1,513 Posts	^How are the votes redistributed, evenly or by re-vote? And remember, "I'm-a Luigi, number one!"

05-03-2011, 04:20 AM	#10
Kargath et in Arcadia ego Join Date: Jul 2001 Gender: Posts: 8,334 Thanks: 1,226 Thanked 780 Times in 488 Posts	Each vote is always allocated to the candidate that: * is still standing * has the highest number on that particular vote