Instant Runoff Voting

[Zep]

Can someone here show me an example how this would work in the next election? If we voted from 1-5...

IOW let's say:

Giuliani gets 34% of the vote.
Hilary gets 32%.
Obama gets 15%.
McCane gets 12%.
Lieberman runs as an independent and gets the remaining 7%.

Eventually the run-off election would still be between Rudy and Hilary, right?
Lieberman has the same tiny chance as in the current system.

Or would the IRV or Australian system nurture alternative candidates when people start campaigning, and therefore we'd have more variety of higher quality candidates by the time the campaign is over?

The process of "distributing preferences" is as follows:

1) Take the pile of ballots for the lowest polling candidate, and look at their next preference down.

2) Distribute their ballots into the remaining piles based on that preference. E.g. First pass, distribute Lieberman's ballots based on whoever the voters selected as their number 2 preference.

3) Has any candidate now got a >50% majority? Winner!

4) If not, go to step (1).


What this means is that Giuliani may not be safe in this election. Let's say all Lieberman's preferences are evenly distributed, but all of McCane's and Obama's preferences go to Hillary.

So Lieberman's 7% gets distributed as just under 2% to each remaining candidate. Result now looks like this:

Giuliani gets 36%.
Hilary gets 34%.
Obama gets 17%.
McCane gets 14%.

Next pass, all McCane's preferences go to Hillary.

Giuliani gets 36%.
Hilary gets 48%.
Obama gets 17%.

Next pass, all Obama's preferences go to Hillary.

Giuliani gets 36%.
Hilary gets 65%.

And we have a winner!

Of course, it's not always cut-and-dried like that. Preference distribution is a scary time for candidates. And with ballots being counted by hand at each polling station, scrutineers from all interested parties are VERY attentive!

It also means that the major parties often have to cut deals with minor parties in order to secure their voting preferences in elections. This has two effects:

1) With two major parties and a few minor parties, the minors can hold "the balance of power". They trade their preferences against policy deals and agreements with the majors. They may not be the government party, but they can exercise influence over the party that is.

2) It means the "How to vote" literature we get outside polling booths shows how to number your ballot to achieve what the parties want (we are free to ignore that, of course, but many do follow party lines).

 

[Puppycow]

Problems with it: Of course, there's the "donkey vote". Because we have compulsory state and federal elections, many people do not give a rats about the candidates or policies but have to vote anyway. So they simply number all the candidates down the ballot paper - dumb-as-a-donkey vote. Which means the order of candidates on the ballot IS important, and much hoo-hah and ranting attends this when the order-of-listing is drawn up.

Easy solution to that: don't make voting mandatory. Why on earth force uninterested people to add white noise to the process?

 

[Zep]

Easy solution to that: don't make voting mandatory. Why on earth force uninterested people to add white noise to the process?

There's arguments both ways.

Arguments used in favour of compulsory voting

* Voting is a civic duty comparable to other duties citizens perform eg taxation, compulsory education, jury duty
* Teaches the benefits of political participation
* Parliament reflects more accurately the "will of the electorate"
* Governments must consider the total electorate in policy formulation and management
* Candidates can concentrate their campaigning energies on issues rather than encouraging voters to attend the poll
* The voter isn’t actually compelled to vote for anyone because voting is by secret ballot.

Arguments used against compulsory voting:

* It is undemocratic to force people to vote - an infringement of liberty
* The ill informed and those with little interest in politics are forced to the polls
* It may increase the number of "donkey votes"
* It may increase the number of informal votes
* It increases the number of safe, single-member electorates - political parties then concentrate on the more marginal electorates
* Resources must be allocated to determine whether those who failed to vote have "valid and sufficient" reasons.

http://www.aec.gov.au/Voting/Compulsory_Voting.htm

 

[tsg]

Arguments used in favour of compulsory voting

* Voting is a civic duty comparable to other duties citizens perform eg taxation, compulsory education, jury duty

I don't necessarily disagree, but unless you can ensure people will vote honestly, it doesn't accomplish its goal.

* Teaches the benefits of political participation

Unless it forces them to take an interest in politics instead of just filling out a form, I don't see that it does this.

* Parliament reflects more accurately the "will of the electorate"

Only if the "will of the electorate" is accurately represented by the ballots, which it won't be for some of them.

* Governments must consider the total electorate in policy formulation and management

Again, only if the ballots accurately reflect the "will of the electorate".

* Candidates can concentrate their campaigning energies on issues rather than encouraging voters to attend the poll

I've always argued that if you make the people care about the issues, they will find their way to the polls all by themselves. But I also disagree with the practice of encouraging people to vote who don't want to. If they don't care about the issues enough to vote, their opinions are not likely to be informed, and I'd prefer they just stayed home.

* The voter isn’t actually compelled to vote for anyone because voting is by secret ballot.

I don't disagree, but I'm not sure it's really the problem, either.

Compulsory voting can only achieve these goals if the electorate is forced to care, and forced to vote honestly. I don't see how you can do that.

 

[Puppycow]

I don't necessarily disagree, but unless you can ensure people will vote honestly, it doesn't accomplish its goal.

Unless it forces them to take an interest in politics instead of just filling out a form, I don't see that it does this.

Only if the "will of the electorate" is accurately represented by the ballots, which it won't be for some of them.

Again, only if the ballots accurately reflect the "will of the electorate".
etc.

I agree. I see all these extra reasons as red herrings and unnecessary distractions. The real purpose should be to choose the best people from among the candidates to fill the jobs, not as some didactic exercise for making disinterested people take an interest.

 

[Zep]

So can I summarise your points, tsg?

1) You don't trust the electorate to be able to fill in a ballot accurately/honestly if voting is compulsory.

Let's look at the voter turnout and informal vote figures as a guide to how this plays out in reality. The ABS (Australian Bureau of Statistics) keeps such stats:
Linkity!
Voter turnout, 2001 election = 94.9%
Informal votes, 2001 election = 4.8%

Hmmm. Seems 95% of us adult Aussies can fill in a voting paper properly, and we are prepared to actually vote even though we are dragged to the polls. I suspect we would see approximately similar figures in most educated countries under the same voting system.



2) You see compulsory voting as "forcing" them to care.

True, many people simply don't care. Or care only enough to vote strict party lines. This is different from any other democratic nation how?

The point is with compulsory voting they are faced with the opportunity to care first hand. The method of not taking it ranges from not voting, spoiling the ballot, or donkey voting. The stats say the last is probably the most frequent way out.

The reality is that voting day is an opportunity for local schools and halls (which are used for polling places) to hold a fete and coffee-and-cake sale, so that everyone can gather and have a community chat!

Political advertising happens here just as much as in the USA (we are all gearing up for the announcement of a federal election even now, so the policy battle TV ads have already started...). See points 4 and 5 in favour of compulsory voting.

 

[tsg]

So can I summarise your points, tsg?

1) You don't trust the electorate to be able to fill in a ballot accurately/honestly if voting is compulsory.

Let's look at the voter turnout and informal vote figures as a guide to how this plays out in reality. The ABS (Australian Bureau of Statistics) keeps such stats:
Linkity!
Voter turnout, 2001 election = 94.9%
Informal votes, 2001 election = 4.8%

Hmmm. Seems 95% of us adult Aussies can fill in a voting paper properly, and we are prepared to actually vote even though we are dragged to the polls. I suspect we would see approximately similar figures in most educated countries under the same voting system.

That wasn't my argument. That they can fill out a ballot correctly is not an indication that they put any thought into it, or that their opinions were informed when they did it.

2) You see compulsory voting as "forcing" them to care.

That isn't what I said. In fact, I said the exact opposite: it only forces them to fill out a form, not to care about it.

True, many people simply don't care. Or care only enough to vote strict party lines. This is different from any other democratic nation how?

Well, for one, the US doesn't force those people to make a decision they have no interest in making and claim it represents the will of the people.

The point is with compulsory voting they are faced with the opportunity to care first hand. The method of not taking it ranges from not voting, spoiling the ballot, or donkey voting. The stats say the last is probably the most frequent way out.

People have the opportunity to care anyway whether or not you force them to make a decision. If they don't have an opinion I see no point in asking them for one. The donkey votes just illustrate that point. Flipping a coin (or worse, whose name appears on the ballot first) is not an accurate measure of the will of the people.

The reality is that voting day is an opportunity for local schools and halls (which are used for polling places) to hold a fete and coffee-and-cake sale, so that everyone can gather and have a community chat!

I'm assuming you're being facetious here.

Political advertising happens here just as much as in the USA (we are all gearing up for the announcement of a federal election even now, so the policy battle TV ads have already started...). See points 4 and 5 in favour of compulsory voting.

I've addressed that. If the people are interested in the issues, they will find their way to the polls all by themselves. Convincing (or forcing) them to take part in the process for the sake of the process is working the wrong side of the problem.

People who don't vote either don't care, don't believe it makes a difference or are deliberately avoiding taking part in a process they feel doesn't work. Fix that, and the problem of people not voting will go away all on it's own.

 

[aerosolben]

Hey, a voting systems fan. Always intriguing - I once wrote a term paper on voting systems.

(Although I'm linking rangevoting.org a bit, I don't think I'm as die-hard for range voting as he is. IRV would be nice too, it just seems that range voting is slightly nicer.)

Personally, I like Condorcet systems, but ranged voting is also very good. I don't know why municipalities choose to use IRV all the time - if you're going to go to the trouble of setting up a ranked ballot, why choose one of the worst systems?

I assume because of the similarities (and similar weaknesses) to plurality voting.

 

[steverino]

1) With two major parties and a few minor parties, the minors can hold "the balance of power". They trade their preferences against policy deals and agreements with the majors. They may not be the government party, but they can exercise influence over the party that is.

2) It means the "How to vote" literature we get outside polling booths shows how to number your ballot to achieve what the parties want (we are free to ignore that, of course, but many do follow party lines).

Zep, Thanks for taking the time to clarify, and for not teasing me about spelling Hillary "Hilary."

As you say, the minor, independent candidates could really sway the front runners' chances of winning and make behind the scene deals.

 

[Zep]

Oh well - I tried!

That wasn't my argument. That they can fill out a ballot correctly is not an indication that they put any thought into it, or that their opinions were informed when they did it.

That isn't what I said. In fact, I said the exact opposite: it only forces them to fill out a form, not to care about it.

Well, for one, the US doesn't force those people to make a decision they have no interest in making and claim it represents the will of the people.

People have the opportunity to care anyway whether or not you force them to make a decision. If they don't have an opinion I see no point in asking them for one. The donkey votes just illustrate that point. Flipping a coin (or worse, whose name appears on the ballot first) is not an accurate measure of the will of the people.

I thought I mentioned all this above in the arguments for and against. Hardly deniable, of course.

I'm assuming you're being facetious here.

No, I'm not. But then again, there seems to be a different mentality to voting here. It's like giving blood - it may be a little bit painful personally, but it is for the community good so we do it.

I've addressed that. If the people are interested in the issues, they will find their way to the polls all by themselves. Convincing (or forcing) them to take part in the process for the sake of the process is working the wrong side of the problem.

People who don't vote either don't care, don't believe it makes a difference or are deliberately avoiding taking part in a process they feel doesn't work. Fix that, and the problem of people not voting will go away all on it's own.

The same issue needs addressing whether voting is compulsory or not. It's just that the response permitted is different.