Sunday, October 23, 2011

Ranked-Choice Voting

In class, we discussed various voting system alternatives to the plurality, and examined the relative ability of each system to reflect the true preferences of voters. This NY Times article examines a system of ranked-choice voting, "instant runoff" voting, which the city of San Francisco recently adopted as the method to be used in its mayoral races.
The "instant runoff" appears to be a slightly modified version of the Hare system. In the "instant runoff" system, voters "select their top three favorite candidates in order of preference." If no candidates wins a majority, then the candidate with the least number of votes is eliminated. The voters who originally voted for the eliminated candidate will then have their votes automatically counted towards their second-choice candidate, and the votes will be tallied again. Candidates will continue to be eliminated in this manner until a majority is reached. This system has been championed by electoral reform activist Steven Hill, who claims it is fairer and less costly than the plurality system traditionally used in U.S. elections for public office. (For more information on this particular voting method, check out the website for Steven Hill's organization.)
In theory, this system should be superior to the plurality system. For one, there is much less incentive for strategic voting. For instance, unlike a plurality system, the "instant runoff" system does not create a situation where voters are afraid to vote for a third-party candidate because this candidate would 'take away' votes from a second-choice mainstream candidate. However, according to this article, voters are having trouble understanding how this system works -- they are either leaving their second and third choices blank, or they are choosing more than three candidates, causing their ballots to be invalidated. Perhaps it is the case that voters simply have not been made sufficiently aware of the how the voting system works. Another potential drawback to keep in mind, though, is that this system requires the voter to have more knowledge about each of the candidates (compared to the plurality system). The voter must know not only who his favorite candidate is, but who his next two favorite candidates are (in order). Many voters will likely not be sufficiently knowledgeable.

No comments: