IRV

[SingingAnalyst]

I don't see a thread devoted to IRV, so I thought I'd start one.

I am aware of the shortcomings of IRV (the hypothetical Tennessee capital election on Wikipedia's IRV page is a good example). Also the fact that the ballots of those who vote "1" for the PV winner are only examined once, while other ballots are examined multiple times.

In real life, Bob Kiss probably would have won the 2009 Burlington, VT mayoral election if the old (and later reinstated) 40% rule was in effect. (If no one gets over 40% there is a runoff between top two candidates).

Still, I see it as a viable option, removing the idea of a wasted vote.

What do we think? Would Gore have won in 2000 if every state had IRV? (I believe he would have won FL and NH). Didn't this used to be called the Hare system?

[SingingAnalyst]

I think IRV has shortcomings, but using those shortcomings as an argument against it (and thus, implicitly, as an argument in favor of the status quo, the ever more shortcoming-riddled FPTP) is silly.

I agree. Repealing Burlington's IRV in 2010 (by 52-48%) may have been cathartic for Republicans, but I feel it was a step backwards. Kiss (Prog.) still would have won in 2009. The only way Wright (R) wins is under FPTP.

I think it is telling that IRV is in place mainly in left-leaning communities.

The 2013 VA gubernatorial election is a good example of how IRV would work. McCauliff (D) beat Cucinelli (R) 48.1-45.5%, with 6.4% voting libertarian. Ds and Rs argued over who lost more votes to the Libertarian, and McAuliffe took office with less than majority support. Giving Libertarian voters (along with everyone else) a chance to select a second choice would remove the minority support aspect (and in this case possibly change the result). Similarly for another election in which the R defeated the D 48-47, with L getting 4%, which also produced arguments (the L, who was pro-same-sex marriage, may have taken votes from the D).