Instant Runoff Voting
Facts vs Fiction
Use this website to find out what computer scientists, mathematicians, political consultants, election officials, government officials, election integrity activists and voter advocates say about Instant Runoff Voting (IRV), also called Rank Choice Voting. See our news page for updates and videos.
The Truth About Instant Runoff Voting - It Does Not Work As Advertised and Here is Proof Instant Runoff Voting does not work as advertised, and has unintended consequences . IRV does not save money, does not reduce negative campaigning, does not simplify elections, does not increase turnout and does not provide a majority outcome in most elections. In fact, IRV usually provides a plurality result. There are other ways to improve elections or help third parties without the drawbacks of IRV. Read more in this report .
What are the problems with Instant Runoff Voting? IRV is not "as easy as 1-2-3" and hurts third parties by entrenching the two-party political system wherever it has been tried. See how Instant runoff voting has impacted San Francisco, the largest jurisdiction in the US to use it. Implementation of IRV corresponded with a drastic drop in voter turnout in San Francisco's mayoral contests; IRV consistantly suffers from majority failure and several states' fiscal analysis show that IRV creates new and high costs in elections.
IRV violates core principles of election integrity, whether using optical scan voting systems or Direct Record/Touchscreen machines. IRV increases reliance on more complex technology, making audits and recounts more prohibitive, further eroding election transparency. Because IRV is not additive, no matter what voting system is used, the ballots, (electronic or optical scan) have to be hauled away from where they are cast to a central location to be counted. This increases the chance of fraud or lost votes. The tallying software utilizes a complex algorithm that makes the process even more opaque.
IRV does not help racial minorities and may even impede them . IRV may negatively impact the disabled. Instant Runoff Voting Fails to Meet its Hype. See our frequently updated news page .
What IS instant runoff voting?
Instant-runoff voting (IRV) is a voting system used for single-winner elections in which voters can rank candidates in order of preference. In an IRV election, if no candidate receives a majority of first choices, the candidate with the fewest number of votes is eliminated, and ballots cast for that candidate are redistributed to the continuing candidates according to the voters' indicated preference.
In “Realities Mar Instant Runoff Voting - 18 Flaws and 3 Benefits” Kathy Dopp, President of the National Election Data Archive addresses the complexity of counting and great difficulty of auditing instant runoff style voting, the costs to implement IRV, and its flaws as a voting method:
“Instant runoff voting is a threat to the fairness, accuracy, timeliness, and economy of U.S. elections. The U.S. needs to solve its existing voting system problems and then carefully consider the options before adopting new voting methods.”
Who supports Instant Runoff Voting?
The current push to implement Instant Runoff Voting (nation-wide) was inspired by Fair Vote , a group whose ultimate goal is to convert the United States over to "proportional representation" a form of government used in many European countries. IRV is being touted as a way to boost third parties, reduce or eliminate the "spoiler effect", save money by avoiding runoff elections, increase turnout and decrease negative campaigning.
IRV requires (incentivizes) more complex voting machines/technology that isn't yet ready for prime time. San Francisco elections were a beta test for IRV software from 2004-2007. In 2007 Secretary of State McPherson reported an long existing anomaly in the IRV algorithm used to calculate the winners. Pierce County, Washington used uncertified voting systems already found to have flaws, in November 2008. Officials there felt backed against a wall because by law they are required to implement IRV, but found it too hard to count by hand. A majority of Pierce County voters voted to ditch IRV on Nov 3, 2009.
IRV comes before election integrity for many IRV supporters. Advocates for IRV have attacked one of the nations' most respected election officials for refusing to allow the use of new voting systems that did not meet the standards of California's election laws.
__________________________________________________________________ |
“This is not a ballot, this is a portal into hell.” — Asheville City Council member Carl Mumpower on instant-runoff ballots, in ”Votes and Slopes,” May 16, 2007
Instant Runoff Voting Wikipedia article - much edited & disputed
Liberal Blogger Brad Friedman 'Instant Runoff Voting' (IRV) Election Virus Spreads to Los Angeles County :Joins 'Internet Voting' and 'Vote-by-Mail' schemes as the latest bad ideas poised to further cripple American democracy
Kathy Dopp "Realities Mar Instant Runoff - 18 Flaws and 3 Benefits
Burlington Vermont 2009 IRV mayor election
Thwarted-majority, non-monotonicity & other failures (oops)
By Anthony Gierzynski, Wes Hamilton, & Warren D. Smith,
March 2009. (skip to summary)
Voting Paradoxes and Perverse Outcomes: Political Scientist Tony Gierzynski Lays Out A Case Against Instant Runoff Voting March 12th, 2009
"The Problem with Instant Runoff Voting"
Libertarian Reform Caucus "Anyone for a Bullet in the Foot? Instant Runoff!"
Protect US Elections - Stop Instant Runoff Voting News,blog about Instant Runoff Voting in the US -
Protect North Carolina Elections - Stop Instant Runoff Voting Blog to educate and inform NC Public and Officials about unintended problems with IRV
No IRV in NC! This blog is for people to comment on the problems with Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) and how we can keep it from creeping into North Carolina under the disguise of election reform.
IRV page at the Center for Range Voting much research about how IRV works. Rebuts many claims.
Australian Politics - the "Disadvantages of the Preferential [IRV] System"... promotes a two-party system to the detriment of minor parties and independents.
Instant Runoff Voting Fails to Meet its Hype
Chuck Herrin, IT Certification specialist and White Hat Hacker –on auditability and security under "Since You Asked"
San Francisco Director of Elections Jim Arntz on costs and labor for voter education and for recounts.
Assessment of Ranked-Choice Voting in the San Francisco 2004 Election – Pros and Cons, data.
Asessment of Ranked-Choice Voting in the San Francisco 2005 Election - Pros and Cons, data
Straight Talk On So-Called "Instant Runoff Voting" or Why the "Cure" Is as Deadly as the "Disease" by Greg Dewar, Political Consultant in San Francisco for Green and Dem candidates
Instant Runoff Voting Not Meeting Expectations - Part I by John Dunbar for "Beyond Chron" a daily internet newspaper in San Francisco..Nov 16,2005
Instant Runoff Voting Not Meeting Expectations - Part II by John Dunbar for "Beyond Chron" a daily internet newspaper in San Francisco..Nov 17,2005
CALPERS, the California Public Employees’ Retirement System trustees decision not to use IRV.
Flaws in IRV compared to ranked pairs
Ka-Ping Yee's Voting Simulation Visualizations
Minnesota Voters Alliance
North Carolina Coalition For Verified Voting
Raleigh, North Carolina City Counsel tabled IRV, city council members explain why .
Kevin McGuire, an associate professor of political science at UNC Chapel Hill about voter --- participation tied to knowledge of candidates in judicial contests
___________________
|
