IRV Q&A

Q&A

Q: Isn't IRV complicated?

A:
Not for the voter. The voter has the option of ranking alternate choices...in case there is no majority winner and the voter's 1st choice candidate doesn't make it into the final runoff count.
Voters no longer have to think about whether their 1st choice candidate has a good chance to win, or if they are "wasting" their vote, or even helping their least preferred candidate.
Counting the ballots is more involved (but will be automated ) if there is no initial majority winner. It's the same as a runoff election, but since you list your runoff choice, your 2nd choice, at the same time as your 1st choice, the runoff happens instantly.

Q: What if I don't know the other candidates, or only like one candidate?

A: Your vote counts the same way it counts in the current system. IRV simply gives you the option of ranking the candidates if you wish. If you do select a 2nd choice, that vote would only count if no candidate received a majority, and if your 1st choice were eliminated.

Q: What about voting machines? Will IRV require buying new voting machines?

A: Yes. New York State’s current mechanical lever voting equipment is compatible with IRV, but there might not be sufficient room for preference ranking in all elections. The New York State Task Force on Election Modernization presented its recommendations (in April, 2002) for ATM-style equipment which can work with IRV, but new legislation must be passed to eliminate the requirement for a full-face ballot.

Q: Our elections don't seem to have a big problem. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." Right?

A: With two candidates in a race, there is no problem as the top vote-getter will automatically have a majority. The problem arises when there are three or more candidates. Current plurality rules allow a winner that does not represent the will of the majority.

Q: But it isn't a disaster to let the candidate with a mere plurality take office, is it?

A: No, but IRV fixes the problem that a really bad candidate could win by plurality. In a primary with four candidates, a plurality winner is possible with just 26% of the vote, meaning three of every four voters preferred someone else. That a candidate the majority considers unacceptable can defeat a candidate preferred by a majority of voters can weaken the winner's governing legitimacy. Robert's Rules of Order says that IRV "makes possible a more representative result than under a rule that a plurality shall elect," and "...this type of preferential ballot is preferable to an election by plurality..."

Q: I'm not sure IRV really works. Does anyone use IRV now?

A: IRV works very well in Australia, Ireland, and London. It is the recommended voting procedure in Robert's Rules of Order, called "preferential voting." The American Political Science Association, the professional association of political scientists, uses IRV to elect its national president. A professor at MIT invented the system. A referendum for IRV passed in March, 2002 in San Francisco and in several towns in Vermont. In May 2002, IRV was used to select Utah's Republican candidates for Congress.

Q: Why not just use a familiar two-election runoff procedure?

A:
Two-round runoffs have distinct disadvantages. A traditional runoff extends the campaign season. Traditional runoffs are costly, both to the taxpayer who must pay for the duplicate election and to the candidates who must increase campaign fund-raising, creating more potential influence for campaign donors. (The cost to taxpayers of the NYC Democratic mayoralty runoff election was $10 million.)
IRV assures the decision will be made at the election with the greatest level of voter participation. Runoffs tend to have lower voter turnout. The winner of a runoff may receive far fewer votes than an opponent did in the original election, leading to doubts about the real will of the people, and lack of a legitimacy and perceived mandate. In a big field of candidates, the strongest candidate might finish third and miss the runoff altogether.

Q: Is IRV constitutional? Can we elect our President by IRV?

A: Absolutely. Any state can adopt IRV for selecting U.S. presidential electors by a mere state law there is no need for a federal constitutional amendment. The U.S. Constitution leaves it up to the states to decide how to conduct their elections. New York State would require the state legislature to pass a bill, but no amendment to the state constitution would be required.

Q: Isn't IRV just a way voters can avoid hard choices?

A: IRV gives voters more and better choices. It is no virtue for our current system to force some voters to oppose their 1st choice just because that candidate is unlikely to win. Campaigns should be about debate, dialog and participation, not just determining winners.

NYS-IRV www.nysirv.org February, 2003

Q:	Isn't IRV complicated?
A:	Not for the voter. The voter has the option of ranking alternate choices...in case there is no majority winner and the voter's 1st choice candidate doesn't make it into the final runoff count. Voters no longer have to think about whether their 1st choice candidate has a good chance to win, or if they are "wasting" their vote, or even helping their least preferred candidate. Counting the ballots is more involved (but will be automated ) if there is no initial majority winner. It's the same as a runoff election, but since you list your runoff choice, your 2nd choice, at the same time as your 1st choice, the runoff happens instantly.
Q:	What if I don't know the other candidates, or only like one candidate?
A:	Your vote counts the same way it counts in the current system. IRV simply gives you the option of ranking the candidates if you wish. If you do select a 2nd choice, that vote would only count if no candidate received a majority, and if your 1st choice were eliminated.
Q:	What about voting machines? Will IRV require buying new voting machines?
A:	Yes. New York State’s current mechanical lever voting equipment is compatible with IRV, but there might not be sufficient room for preference ranking in all elections. The New York State Task Force on Election Modernization presented its recommendations (in April, 2002) for ATM-style equipment which can work with IRV, but new legislation must be passed to eliminate the requirement for a full-face ballot.
Q:	Our elections don't seem to have a big problem. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." Right?
A:	With two candidates in a race, there is no problem as the top vote-getter will automatically have a majority. The problem arises when there are three or more candidates. Current plurality rules allow a winner that does not represent the will of the majority.
Q:	But it isn't a disaster to let the candidate with a mere plurality take office, is it?
A:	No, but IRV fixes the problem that a really bad candidate could win by plurality. In a primary with four candidates, a plurality winner is possible with just 26% of the vote, meaning three of every four voters preferred someone else. That a candidate the majority considers unacceptable can defeat a candidate preferred by a majority of voters can weaken the winner's governing legitimacy. Robert's Rules of Order says that IRV "makes possible a more representative result than under a rule that a plurality shall elect," and "...this type of preferential ballot is preferable to an election by plurality..."
Q:	I'm not sure IRV really works. Does anyone use IRV now?
A:	IRV works very well in Australia, Ireland, and London. It is the recommended voting procedure in Robert's Rules of Order, called "preferential voting." The American Political Science Association, the professional association of political scientists, uses IRV to elect its national president. A professor at MIT invented the system. A referendum for IRV passed in March, 2002 in San Francisco and in several towns in Vermont. In May 2002, IRV was used to select Utah's Republican candidates for Congress.
Q:	Why not just use a familiar two-election runoff procedure?
A:	Two-round runoffs have distinct disadvantages. A traditional runoff extends the campaign season. Traditional runoffs are costly, both to the taxpayer who must pay for the duplicate election and to the candidates who must increase campaign fund-raising, creating more potential influence for campaign donors. (The cost to taxpayers of the NYC Democratic mayoralty runoff election was $10 million.) IRV assures the decision will be made at the election with the greatest level of voter participation. Runoffs tend to have lower voter turnout. The winner of a runoff may receive far fewer votes than an opponent did in the original election, leading to doubts about the real will of the people, and lack of a legitimacy and perceived mandate. In a big field of candidates, the strongest candidate might finish third and miss the runoff altogether.
Q:	Is IRV constitutional? Can we elect our President by IRV?
A:	Absolutely. Any state can adopt IRV for selecting U.S. presidential electors by a mere state law there is no need for a federal constitutional amendment. The U.S. Constitution leaves it up to the states to decide how to conduct their elections. New York State would require the state legislature to pass a bill, but no amendment to the state constitution would be required.
Q:	Isn't IRV just a way voters can avoid hard choices?
A:	IRV gives voters more and better choices. It is no virtue for our current system to force some voters to oppose their 1st choice just because that candidate is unlikely to win. Campaigns should be about debate, dialog and participation, not just determining winners.