Instant Runoff Voting What really happens behind the curtain? A personal opinion…

Choices, choices … Voting methods… Plurality – One vote per person. The candidate with the most votes wins. Most common, used for centuries. Borda Count – Voters rank the candidates to the 8 th; first choice, second choice, etc. Candidate with most votes wins. Approval Voting (AV) – Voters ranks as many as they wish. Candidate with most votes wins. Condorcet Method – Election by pairings of two candidates, i.e. most preferred First-past-the-post and more….

Tactical Voting…. “Compromising (useful)” “Burying” “Push-over” “Shot gunning” “Myerson-Weber Strategy” Tactical voting has been compared to “making the ballot into a non-trivial game”

Instant Runoff Voting or IRV… ( aka Preferential voting) Voter ranks the candidates, 1 st choice, 2 nd choice, etc. up to __#__places. Ballots are sorted by 1 st choice candidates; valid ballots are counted. The sum of valid ballots becomes the total valid vote, i.e The quota for election shall be a simple majority, i.e. 325 ÷ 2. (Total valid vote ÷ 2) Used at the 1 st District Republican Convention, April 2008

IRV cont… If there is no clear winner, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated; each of his ballots are redistributed to the next valid choice. Ballots are then counted again. The process of elimination and redistribution is repeated until a candidate attains majority.

Example of IRV – If there are 21 valid ballots, a candidate needs 11 votes to win # Voters 1 st Round 2 nd Round 3 rd Round I. 7 A, B, C, DA=7A=13 II. 6 B, A, C, DB=6 III. 5 C, B, A, DC=8 IV. 3 D, C, B, AD=0 RD 1 “D” is eliminated. RD 2 “B” is eliminated. RD 3 “A” is elected.

IRV – If 21 valid ballots, candidate needs 11 votes to win # Voters 1 st Round 2 nd Round 3 rd Round I. 7 A, B, C, DA=7 II. 6 B, A, C, DB=6B=11 III. 5 C, B, A, DC=5 IV. 3 D,D=0 RD 1 “D” is eliminated. RD 2 “C” is eliminated. RD 3 “B” is elected.

Fair Vote? “Consider an IRV election with three candidates, A, B, and C. Let's say candidate A receives 40 first-choice votes; candidate B receives 35 and candidate C receives 25. Since no candidate received 51% of first-choice votes, candidate C is eliminated and those 25 ballots are re-counted for second choice votes and a new total is then tallied. If 16 of those votes go to candidate B, and 9 go to candidate A; candidate B is declared the winner with 51 votes. In this example, those voters who preferred candidate C had their first and second choices counted while those voters who preferred candidate A had only their first choice votes counted. This clearly indicates a flawed system.” Source: Minnesota Voters Alliance,

1 st District Convention Delegate Nominees 4/5/08: 1. Burdick, Donald G. 2. Casey, Gary A. 3. Conrad, David 4. Crosnoe, Sandra 5. Dahm, Nathan 6. Dahm, Travis 7. Dau, Peggy 8. Davies, Robert 9. Davis, Nathan 10. Ford, Michael 11. Haworth, Patrick 12. Malinowski, Patricia Mary 13. Malinowski, Stephan Joseph 14. McDonald, Andrew 15. Medlock, Cheryl 16. Medlock, Chris 17. Peters, Jake 18. Rodriguez, Christina 19. Ruffin, Kristin 20. Ruffin, Sandra 21. Sippel, Megan 22. Underwood, Ryan Charles 23. Walsh, Brittany 24. Walsh, James G. 25. Wiland, George Bolded Yellow italics indicates winners

1 st District Nominees for Alternate Delegate and National Elector Alternate Delegate: Buchannan, Jerry Jones, Nolan Mohorovicic, Joy National Elector: Chrisco, Virginia Williamson, Lawrence A. Bolded Yellow italics indicates winners

The infamous Slip of Paper Found on the floor after the elections at the 1 st Dist. Convention 4/8/08 After the st Dist. Conv. elections were over, this slip of paper was found on the floor of the convention hall, under a chair in the “establishment” area. Out of a field of 33 candidates and historic voter turnout, only these people were elected. (Certain attendees knew to vote this “slate”; the rest voted per the given instructions.) Using the IRV voting method, was “tactical voting” used to get these 7 people elected? A: Yes. No one is questioning whether the winners had prior knowledge of a secret slate. Only the IRV method is in question, i.e. can the IRV method be manipulated by tactical voting?

In my opinion….and others… System is too complicated/takes too many people to count Touted by “self-indulgent intellectuals” Results cannot be repeated (It won’t be done) Some ballots count more than others. People vote more than once; cast multiple votes* Some ballots only get counted once, while others are counted 2 or more times* Get different results vs. plurality, Borda, etc. voting Cannot recount/audit the results Disenfranchises voters who cannot understand Room for error * Indicates opinion from Minnesota Voters Alliance,

Sample: Nashville wins! But… “While any Condorcet method will elect Nashville as the winner, if instead an election based on the same votes were held using first-past-the-post or instant-runoff voting, these systems would select Memphis[2] and Knoxville[3] respectively. This would occur despite the fact that most people would have preferred Nashville to either of those "winners". Condorcet methods make these preferences obvious rather than ignoring or discarding them.” Illustration just to indicate that voting methods can change the outcome.

…. Only “Experts” explain the results…. You DARE Question the Great OZ? End of my opinion