Interesting IRV result for Oakland Mayor race

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

First round:

DON PERATA    32773    33.96%    
JEAN QUAN    23774    24.64%    
REBECCA KAPLAN    20724    21.48%
JOE TUMAN    11957    12.39%    
Plus various others

9th round:

DON PERATA    36816    40.21%
JEAN QUAN    28399    31.02%
REBECCA KAPLAN    26333    28.76%

10th round:
JEAN QUAN    43825    51.09%
DON PERATA    41949    48.91%

http://www.acgov.org/rov/rcv/results/rcvresults_2984.htm

Several thousand votes remain to be counted, though.

[Lunar]

She got 75% of Kaplan's votes there, impressive

[jimrtex]

She got 75% of Kaplan's votes there, impressive

About 60%.  Peralta got around 20%, and 20% were exhausted.

It could be close enough that the limit of 3 choices may have been decisive.

[Хahar 🤔]

Definitely an unexpected result.

jimrtex is of course right about fake IRV being bad.

[minionofmidas]

Well three's better than two. But yeah, limiting the number of choices voters may make (as opposed to, are required to make) = stupid idea.

[JohnnyLongtorso]

Vermont may be implementing IRV soon -- Shumlin is a supporter of it, and the legislature passed it already, but it was vetoed by Douglas.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

She got 75% of Kaplan's votes there, impressive

About 60%.  Peralta got around 20%, and 20% were exhausted.

It could be close enough that the limit of 3 choices may have been decisive.

Well, the final round had 6873 voters who had voted for 3 people, and had them all exhausted. However, many of those might have been multiple times for the same candidate (for example 488 of them voted for Kaplan 3 times), and there's no reason to believe that they'd necessarily heavily favor Perata over Quan on a hypothetical 4th ranking.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

She got 75% of Kaplan's votes there, impressive

About 60%.  Peralta got around 20%, and 20% were exhausted.

It could be close enough that the limit of 3 choices may have been decisive.

Well, the final round had 6873 voters who had voted for 3 people, and had them all exhausted. However, many of those might have been multiple times for the same candidate (for example 488 of them voted for Kaplan 3 times), and there's no reason to believe that they'd necessarily heavily favor Perata over Quan on a hypothetical 4th ranking.

OK, 5132 of those voted for unique people, and so some of those might have wanted a 4th choice. Another 1741 did things like vote for Kaplan 3 times.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Now, here's an election where voter exhaustion was a huge issue.

It's the San Francisco Supervisor district 10 race. The person currently leading (this one is definitely too close to call) is in 4th place in the 15th round. There were also only 3 preferences per voter.

http://www.sfelections.org/results/20101102/d10.html

[minionofmidas]

She got 75% of Kaplan's votes there, impressive

About 60%.  Peralta got around 20%, and 20% were exhausted.

It could be close enough that the limit of 3 choices may have been decisive.

Well, the final round had 6873 voters who had voted for 3 people, and had them all exhausted. However, many of those might have been multiple times for the same candidate (for example 488 of them voted for Kaplan 3 times), and there's no reason to believe that they'd necessarily heavily favor Perata over Quan on a hypothetical 4th ranking.

OK, 5132 of those voted for unique people, and so some of those might have wanted a 4th choice. Another 1741 did things like vote for Kaplan 3 times.

2.5 times the margin. Highly unlikely that it would have changed much, of course (given that Kaplan's voters preferred Quan over Perata, it's unlikely that those who cast two votes for no-chance candidates plus one for Kaplan would have favored Perata over Quan), but still too semi-possible for comfort.

[rob in cal]

In my past life when I lived in the Bay Area I worked a little with some of the people who helped get IRV, or the truncated version being used, anyway, in these Bay Area cities.  I'm glad they've succeeded as far as they've had, but I still wait for the day when there will be a partisan race for a federal office using it, when people can then truly vote for a third party, if they so desire, without worrying about "wasting their vote" . 
     I fear that the Oakland results will alienate people from the system and lead to opposition to it.  The fact that the first place finisher ends up losing may lead to this happening.  Of course, thats the whole point of IRV, to make sure that the final winner had support of the majority (in theory at least, I realize there are some shortcomings to it).  We see this case in Australia now, where several Labour candidates will narrowly trail Lib/Nat candidates in the first count, but overtake them when the second choice of the trailing Green candidate voters get put in the mix.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

In my past life when I lived in the Bay Area I worked a little with some of the people who helped get IRV, or the truncated version being used, anyway, in these Bay Area cities.  I'm glad they've succeeded as far as they've had, but I still wait for the day when there will be a partisan race for a federal office using it, when people can then truly vote for a third party, if they so desire, without worrying about "wasting their vote" .  
     I fear that the Oakland results will alienate people from the system and lead to opposition to it.  The fact that the first place finisher ends up losing may lead to this happening.  Of course, thats the whole point of IRV, to make sure that the final winner had support of the majority (in theory at least, I realize there are some shortcomings to it).  We see this case in Australia now, where several Labour candidates will narrowly trail Lib/Nat candidates in the first count, but overtake them when the second choice of the trailing Green candidate voters get put in the mix.

Well, usually the first place finisher wins, but they just called the race for Quan. San Leandro also had a close IRV race, and it's possible that the winner was trailing on the first round there, too. The county elections results haven't been updated, though.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

OK, 2nd to last round.

Perata is Blue
Quan is Green
Kaplan is red

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

And the final round.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

2nd last round again, only the winning person's color shown.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I fixed the colors to be like the Atlas colors. I wonder what other maps would be interesting.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Second to final round counts:

Perata 45330
Quan 34958
Kaplan 32645

Final round counts:

Quan 53778
Perata 51720

Without Perata:
Quan 50544
Kaplan 44863

Without Quan:
Perata 53661
Kaplan 49749

A lot of people assumed that Kaplan would win without Quan. Not the case. While she wins Quan's votes by a large margin, they aren't as much as she needed to win, or as much as Quan won her votes by.

Here's another way to compare their performance

1st rankings:
Perata 40224
Quan 29206
Kaplan 25751

1st + 2nd rankings:
Quan 59199
Perata  58255
Kaplan 52021

All rankings:
Quan 77896
Perata 72711
Kaplan 68537

[rob in cal]

Perata said something to the effect that if this had been a normal election he would have won by a landslide.  Normal big city elections in California for mayor include runoffs, (not sure if Oakland used to have runoff for mayor, but LA and San Francisco do, or SF did anyway before RCV), so actually if this had been a normal election we'd have had a runoff anyway, and it would obviously have been a close final result.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

BTW, all of the IRV races that I've looked at had the winner as the Condorcet winner. Even that San Francisco 10th district race where the winner was in 4th place in the 15th round. I imagine if I keep looking I'll find one, but Condorcet and IRV seem to agree most of the time, while often they don't agree with FPTP.

I did find another race where the winner was massively trailing before the final round.

Pierce County, Washington (which unfortunately got rid of IRV) County Executive.

1st round
Bunney 35.12%
McCarthy 26.49%
Goings 23.08%
Lonergan 15.15%

2nd round:
Bunney 41.17%
McCarthy 31.98%
Goings 26.85%

3rd round:
McCarthy 50.75%
Bunney 49.25%

http://www.co.pierce.wa.us/pc/abtus/ourorg/aud/elections/RCV/ranked/rcvresults.htm

What's interesting about this Pierce county race is that enough voters didn't want Bunney that Goings would have done even better against Bunney. This is probably because Bunney is a Republican.

[Free Palestine]

Do those races usually have four or so candidates with more than ten percent of the vote?