What is Instant Runoff Voting?

Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) is nothing but a method of electing a candidate in a political election. Most people in America don't know that there is actually more than one way to run an election. Elections in America are run using what is called the First Past the Post system.

First Past The Post (FPTP)
In this system, the candidate with the plurality of votes wins. So as long as a candidate gets more votes than anyone else, that candidate will win. If there are five candidates (A, B, C, D, and E) in an election each with the results as follows:

Candidate A: 15 percent
Candidate B: 10 percent
Candidate C: 25 percent
Candidate D: 20 Percent
Candidate E: 30 percent


Using the First Past the Post election method in this election awards the win to Candidate E even though that candidate was voted against by 70 percent of the voters. That 70 percent of the people have no representation in this election, even though they constitute a majority of the people.

How it Works
Instant Runoff Voting is a majoritarian system the candidate with the majority of the votes wins. No candidate can win the election without wining 50 percent of the vote. So every winner will at least represent the majority of the people. How does this work, however, if a situation such as the above occurs? Simple. The system not only asks the voter what their first choice candidate is, it asks them their second and third (or fourth or fifth) choices as well. If the first round of voting produces no candidate with a 50 percent majority, the system uses this information to simulate a series of "instant runoffs" where in each round the candidates with the least amount of votes is eliminated. When that candidate is eliminated, the system distributes his/her vote to what his/her voters say was their second choice. If there is still no candidate with 50 percent, another candidate is eliminated and his/her voters are redistributed based on their second choice preferences (or if their second choice candidate was eliminated in the second round, their third choice). The process continues until there is a winner with over 50 percent of the vote.
For instance in the situation above, take the same results:
Round One
Candidate A: 15 percent
Candidate B: 10 percent
Candidate C: 25 percent
Candidate D: 20 Percent
Candidate E: 30 percent

Since no candidate got a majority of the votes, a new round of voting needs to be simulated. First, Candidate B must be eliminated. His 10 percent of the vote must be redistributed. Say 90 percent of his voters preferred candidate C as their second choice and 10 percent candidate D. 9 percentage points would be added to Candidate C's total, and 1 percentage point to Candidate D. The others would be unchanged. The new total would look like this:
Round Two
Candidate A: 15 percent
Candidate B: --eliminated--
Candidate C: 34 percent (+9)
Candidate D: 21 percent (+1)
Candidate E: 30 percent

since no candidate has a majority after round two, the system runs another round. Candidate A is now eliminated with his/her 15 percent of the vote redistributed to the remaining candidates. Say that two thirds of Candidate A's supporters have Candidate D as their next preference candidate and one third have Candidate C. That situation would add 10 percentage points to Candidate D and five points to Candidate C. The results would look like this:
Round Three
Candidate A: --eliminated--
Candidate B: --eliminated--
Candidate C: 39 percent (+5)
Candidate D: 31 percent (+10)
Candidate E: 30 percent

Still no candidate has a majority. So candidate E is eliminated. Suppose one third supports Candidate C, two thirds Candidate D. The results:
Round Four
Candidate A: --eliminated--
Candidate B: --eliminated--
Candidate C: 49 percent (+10)
Candidate D: 51 percent (+20)
Candidate E: --eliminated--

Finally the process has produced a winner! But take a look! The winner in this election using IRV is Candidate D, while the winner using FPTP is Candidate E. The same election with the same candidates, and yet the two voting system produces two different winners. The question is, which one is more legitimate? Candidate E got more the vote in the first round, but that was only because the anti-E vote was split among four different candidates. More people actually preferred Candidate D this election to Candidate E. The IRV system takes this fact into account. The FPTP system does not. The IRV system thus more closely represents the will of the people.

All of these rounds of voting take place instantly. The ballots are tabulated by computer(or humans) and the process is entirely automated. All the voter has to do is provide the information by ranking their candidates.

How They Compare
No election system is perfect, but IRV certainly is more democratic than the FPTP system the United States uses. The requirement that at least 50 percent of the electorate must choose a candidate just makes sense in a country where the majority rules. The ranking of the candidates makes sure that a candidate that is most preferable to the electorate will be chosen. The preference voting system also eliminates the "nader effect" where a third party candidate can risk hurting his/her own cause just by running because his/her candidacy draws votes away from a viable candidate. With the IRV system, the votes of the third party candidate are redistributed if no candidate wins a majority. (If a candidate does win a majority in the first round, a spoiler is a moot point.) The adoption of IRV allows third parties a chance to build their parties without alienating supporters by spoiling elections.

Usage

IRV is used around the world in nations that have opted for a more democratic voting method. Currently all elections in Australia use a form of IRV. Ireland also uses IRV for their presidential elections and their elections to the European Parliament. Other nations, such as New Zealand, are also experimenting with IRV at the local level and considering their use at the federal level.

Prospects in the United States

IRV is currently being used in municipal elections in San Francisco. It’s prospects in the rest of the country is mixed. Most people are not aware of the need for electoral reform, or know what STV is. There is evidence, however, that Americans would be accepting of a move that would allow more representation. Witness the millions of people who voted for Ross Perot and Ralph Nader. It is encouraging, also, that the implementation of IRV would not necessarily require federal legislation. The individual states are in charge of all elections, even federal elections to the presidency, the senate, and the house. Each state can choose to give their electoral votes to the winner of an IRV election if it so chooses. In many states all that stands between FPTP and IRV is a simple ballot initiative. The implementation of IRV would be quite easy in the United States, but the problem remains unknown to most people, even those heavily involved in politics. Most people don’t think twice about the election method, but as we’ve seen it does has a huge outcome on who wins.