3 ms·
>So, the biggest complaint about Instant-runoff voting seems to be that it can lead to a counter-intuitive scenario, where a candidate becomes more popular, but
by bigger_cheese 10y ago
>So, the biggest complaint about Instant-runoff voting seems to be that it can lead to a counter-intuitive scenario, where a candidate becomes more popular, but loses the election.
This sentence doesn't make sense the original article failed to mention if you poll 50% of the first preference vote you get elected. So if you are at least 50% "popular" you can't lose.
If you poll below 50% it comes down to preferences as it rightly should in my opinion. there is nothing counter intuitive about this. It happens here (in Australia) quite often.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/federal-election-2016/guide/mpor/ http://www.abc.net.au/news/federal-election-2016/guide/mpor/
Here the Right (Liberal party) candidate polled 40% and lost because the two Left parties (Labor + Greens) also polled about 40% combined.
- anonymoushn 10y agoIs it good that sometimes voting A > B > C would cause A to lose, while voting C > B > A would cause A to win?
- im3w1l 10y agoDoes this actually happen in practice? What would it take to trigger this behavior?
- anonymoushn 10y agoYes, here's an account of a real election http://www.rangevoting.org/Burlington.html http://www.rangevoting.org/Burlington.html. The relevant bit: > If 753 of the W-voters (specifically, all 495 of the W>K>M voters plus 258 of the 1289 W-only voters) had instead decided to vote for K, then W would have been eliminated (not M) and then M would have beaten K in the final IRV round by 4067 to 3755. In other words, Kiss won, but if 753 Wright-voters had switched their vote to Kiss, that would have made Kiss lose!