Instant-runoff voting (IRV)
Instant-runoff voting (IRV), also known as ranked choice voting, is a voting method where voters rank candidates in order of preference rather than selecting just one. This system is designed to ensure that the winner has a majority of the votes, as candidates are eliminated sequentially based on the lowest vote totals until one candidate achieves at least 50 percent of the votes. While IRV is not widely used throughout the United States, several cities like San Francisco and Portland have adopted it for municipal elections. Countries such as Australia, Papua New Guinea, and Ireland utilize IRV for various elections, including parliamentary and presidential votes.
The concept of IRV dates back to the mid-19th century and was influenced by ideas from early voting reformers like John Stuart Mill and Thomas Hare. IRV enhances voter choice by allowing individuals to express preferences for multiple candidates, which can help minority voices be heard in elections dominated by major parties. Variations of the IRV process exist, with some jurisdictions imposing limits on how many candidates can be ranked or setting specific thresholds for elimination. Overall, IRV aims to create a more representative and fair electoral process, although it has faced criticism and challenges in some areas regarding its implementation.
On this Page
Subject Terms
Instant-runoff voting (IRV)
Instant runoff voting (IRV)—also called ranked choice voting, preferential voting, majority voting, and alternative vote—is a type of voting that is used by several mostly Democratic nations worldwide. Voters do not vote for a single candidate but instead rank candidates in order of preference. Candidates win by the majority vote. While not very common in the United States, several cities—including San Francisco, California, and Portland, Maine—use IRV to determine municipality elections. Countries such as Australia and Papua New Guinea use this style of voting to elect members of parliament, and Ireland employs the system to determine its president. The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences uses IRV to choose the best film of the year at the Academy Awards.
History
The system of IRV can be traced to mid nineteenth-century Europe. In England, John Stuart Mill, a member of Parliament, wanted to accommodate majority rule while still allowing the minority to have a say. He read a pamphlet by Thomas Hare, who advocated for the single transferable vote (STV). In this system of voting, a voter has one vote in an election, but this vote could be transferred to another candidate depending on the outcome of the rank of each candidate. The system ensured voters would have proportional representation. Carl Andræ also championed this type of voting system in Denmark.
IRV differs from STV because it is not a system of proportional representation. IRV is more straightforward and uses an approach in which the winner of an election is determined solely by majority votes. A Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) professor named W.R. Ware developed IRV around 1870. The local government in Queensland, Australia, began using an alternate form of IRV in 1893. In this version, voters ranked each candidate, and all but the top two vote getters were eliminated in a batch rather than sequentially. Western Australia began using IRV in its original form in 1908.
The United States began to change voting procedures after the Civil War (1861–1865) as a way to preserve the balance of power, which European immigrants and freed black slaves threatened. South Carolina used a form of IRV to protect the white people in power; the state continued to sway the vote later by using other voting barriers, such as poll taxes, intimidation, and violence.
In cities in the Northeast and Midwest, wards were established to accommodate the growing number of European immigrants to these areas. Wards were areas where majority votes determined the winners of elections. Many politicians tried to break up the wards and develop new voting systems such as cumulative voting, which was a form of semi-proportional representation.
In the years that followed, states began to adopt their own voting systems for municipality elections. Versions of IRV were adopted in the states of Florida, Indiana, Maryland, and Minnesota in 1912. Maryland used standard IRV, in which the candidates with the least votes were eliminated sequentially, while the other states used batch elimination and kept the top two vote getters. IRV became popular because the system gave voters more choices and allowed them to rank candidates based on their preferences. This allowed women and minorities to receive votes and not just one particular party candidate.
Not everyone was happy with the IRV system in the United States, and many people challenged it because they felt that it violated the Constitution. Opponents called the system un-American and continued to speak out against it, calling for IRV to be repealed. Some opponents in these localities succeeded. By 1960, the IRV system was repealed in many places.
In the twenty-first century, several municipalities throughout the United States and several countries worldwide have adopted or are in the process of considering the IRV system—especially in places where there are multiple candidates on the ballot. Called the alternative vote or preferential vote in Australia, IRV is used in most elections throughout the country. However, the country uses STV to elect members to its senate. Ireland and parts of the United Kingdom also use IRV to elect some of their leaders.
Overview
With IRV, voters do not simply vote for one candidate; they rank each candidate in order of preference. Every IRV system varies, but voters generally have the option to rank as many or as few candidates as they desire. However, this does not mean voters have an infinite amount of votes. Each voter still only has one deciding vote, or one first choice. Although, if a voter's first choice is eliminated, the votes are dispersed to the remaining candidates based on rankings.
In elections with more than two candidates, the candidates with the least amount of votes are eliminated sequentially until only one clear winner remains. More than one candidate can be removed if these candidates' combined totals are less than any other remaining candidates' are. For example, if candidate A has one hundred votes, candidate B has thirty votes, and candidate C has forty votes, candidates B and C can be eliminated since their combined total votes are not more than the total of the top vote getter. These votes are then added to the next-ranked choice. This process continues until only one top-ranked candidate remains. Typically, this person receives at least 50 percent of the total votes.
Some locations uses variations of the IRV process, and they may limit the number of rankings a voter can cast. Others may institute winning thresholds, such as eliminating candidates with less than 50 percent of the total vote. Whatever version is employed, the system allows a winner to emerge from more than two choices in a way in which the majority rules.
Bibliography
"The Basics." InstantRunoff.com, instantrunoff.com/instant-runoff-home/the-basics. Accessed 5 July 2017.
Carbonella, Paul. "Instant-Runoff Voting: The Key to Increased Voter Choice?" The Hill, 6 Aug. 2016, thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/politics/290588-instant-runoff-voting-the-key-to-increased-voter-choice. Accessed 5 July 2017.
"The History of Instant Runoff Voting." FairVote, archive.fairvote.org/irv/vt‗lite/history.htm. Accessed 5 July 2017.
"How RCV Works." FairVote, www.fairvote.org/rcv#how‗rcv‗works. Accessed 5 July 2017.
"Instant Runoff Voting." Accurate Democracy, www.accuratedemocracy.com/c‗irv.htm. Accessed 5 July 2017.
Novoselic, Krist. "A Brief History of Ranked Choice Voting." FairVote, 26 Aug. 2015, www.fairvote.org/a-brief-history-of-ranked-choice-voting. Accessed 5 July 2017.
"Ranked Choice Voting/Instant Runoff." FairVote, www.fairvote.org/rcv#how‗rcv‗works. Accessed 5 July 2017.
Richie, Rob. "Instant Runoff Voting at the Oscars: Choosing Best Picture of the Year." The Huffington Post, 25 May 2011, www.huffingtonpost.com/rob-richie/instant-runoff-voting-oscars‗b‗815567.html. Accessed 5 July 2017.