IRV Oregon


* HOME (NEWS UPDATES)

* WHAT IS IRV?

* BENEFITS OF IRV

* IRV VOTE COUNTING SYSTEMS

* HISTORY OF IRV

* REPLIES TO ARGUMENTS

* MORE INFORMATION

* LOCAL CONTACTS:
       --IRV-Ashland
       --IRV-Lane County
       --IRV-Portland Area



 Benefits of IRV


 The adoption of Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) can:
  • Give voters more real choices,
  • Insure majority rule in elections,
  • Shift power more toward voters rather than well-financed interests,
  • Make government more accountable,
  • Increase voter participation, and
  • Reduce negative campaigning.
Behind these and other benefits is the fact that IRV eliminates the so-called "spoiler" dynamic .

THE SPOILER DYNAMIC

Most U.S. elections require a candidate to receive only a plurality of the votes, rather than a majority, to win an office. This means that whoever gets the most votes wins, even if that candidate receives less than half the votes.

When there are only two candidates for an office one of them will have a majority (unless there is a tie), but when there are more than two candidates the votes may split between them in such a way that none of the candidates have a majority. For example, assume there are two candidates for an election and the percentage of voter support for each of them is this:

          Candidate X:       55% of voters support     <would win if election held
          Candidate Y:       45% of voters support

If the election were held with only the two of them, candidate X would win with majority support. But suppose a third candidate Z enters the race and draws 20% of the voters away from candidate X and 5% away from candidate Y. The percentages of voter support would change to this:

          Candidate X:       35% of voters support
          Candidate Y:       40% of voters support     <would win if election held
          Candidate Z:       25% of voters support

Now if the election were held, candidate Y would win, even though a majority of voters do not support that candidate (40% is less than half). Candidate Z has fallen into the role of the "spoiler" by splitting candidate X's supporters and allowing candidate Y to win instead.

NEGATIVE EFFECTS OF THE SPOILER DYNAMIC

There are several negative effects of the spoiler dynamic:
  1. It can allow a candidate to win even though a majority of voters oppose that candidate (such as candidate Y above).
  2. It creates tensions between candidates (such as candidates X and Z) and their supporters who would otherwise probably act as allies, which can increase the negativity of campaigns.
  3. Voters who prefer a "spoiler" candidate above the other candidates often avoid voting their true preference so that they do not allow a disliked candidate to win over their second choice. Because for most citizens voting is the primary means of expressing themselves politically, the spoiler dynamic can have the effect of distorting some (and possible many) voters' political voices.
  4. In order to avoid the "spoiler" role, some (and possibly many) potential candidates will not run for office, which limits the introduction of new ideas into campaigns.
  5. Well-financed interests have greater influence over the electoral process because well-financed candidates are usually seen as "viable" candidates and less-financed candidates as the "spoilers."
IRV ELIMINATES THE SPOILER DYNAMIC

IRV eliminates the spoiler dynamic because the splitting of voter support when more than two candidates enter a race does not affect the production of a majority winner. In the above example, under IRV candidate Z would be eliminated after the first round of counting and the ballots of the voters who chose candidate Z as their first choice would transfer to each of those voters' second choice, bringing the result back to where it was in the first part of the example: candidate X wins with 55% of the voters to candidate Y's 45%.

By elminating the spoiler dynamic, IRV reduces its negative effects:
  1. A candidate cannot win without majority support.
  2. Candidates who are potential allies can recommend each other as a second choice for voters, which would strengthen alliances and reduce negative campaiging.
  3. Voters can vote their true preferences, expressing their political voice with less distortion.
  4. More candidates will feel free to run, bringing new ideas into the political arena.
  5. The influence of well-financed interests would be reduced.
Some of these effects, of course, depend upon other factors in addition to the kind of voting process that is used. The argument is that IRV tends to lessen things like negative campaiging and the influence of well-financed interests, not that it will completely eliminate them.