NPI's Cascadia Advocate

Offering commentary and analysis from Washington, Oregon, and Idaho, The Cascadia Advocate is the Northwest Progressive Institute's uplifting perspective on world, national, and local politics.

Wednesday, February 20th, 2019

Instant runoff isn’t a sensible alternative to our current voting system; here’s why

How can we build a bet­ter bal­lot and make vot­ing a more sat­is­fy­ing expe­ri­ence?

This is a ques­tion that pro­gres­sive activists and orga­ni­za­tions have been ask­ing for a long time, but with height­ened inter­est fol­low­ing the Supreme Court’s deci­sion in Bush v. Gore, the 2010 vic­to­ry of mil­i­tant Repub­li­can guber­na­to­r­i­al can­di­date Paul LeP­age in Maine, and Don­ald Trump’s 2016 Elec­toral Col­lege win.

Each of those elec­tions demon­strat­ed the weak­ness of the plu­ral­i­ty vot­ing sys­tem we have tra­di­tion­al­ly used here in the Unit­ed States, which is some­times called first past the post (FPTP for short, an allu­sion to rac­ing) or win­ner take all. This sys­tem requires vot­ers to mark a bal­lot for just one can­di­date. The can­di­date who receives the most votes for each posi­tion being vot­ed on then becomes the winner.

In a first past the post elec­tion where there are more than two can­di­dates com­pet­ing for votes, it is pos­si­ble for two good can­di­dates to siphon votes from each oth­er, allow­ing a bad third can­di­date to swoop in and emerge victorious.

This is called the spoil­er effect, and, as men­tioned, this egre­gious defect has reared its ugly head in numer­ous high pro­file elec­tions in the past few years.

To address the spoil­er effect, many elec­tion reform advo­cates are call­ing for the adop­tion of an a dif­fer­ent vot­ing sys­tem known as ranked choice.

Tech­ni­cal­ly speak­ing, there are mul­ti­ple ways to imple­ment ranked choice vot­ing, so that term can refer to more than one alter­na­tive vot­ing sys­tem. How­ev­er, most dis­cus­sions of ranked choice vot­ing equate that term with instant runoff vot­ing, or IRV, so IRV is the imple­men­ta­tion that we will pro­ceed to dis­cuss in this post.

As implied by the name, all ranked choice sys­tems afford vot­ers an oppor­tu­ni­ty to rank the can­di­dates who appear on the bal­lot in a giv­en order.

With IRV, if no can­di­date receives a major­i­ty, then the top vote get­ting can­di­dates each instant­ly advance while can­di­dates receiv­ing the fewest votes are elim­i­nat­ed and their votes redis­trib­uted in order to deter­mine a winner.

Pro­po­nents of IRV, like the nation­al orga­ni­za­tion Fair­Vote, claim that this sys­tem “helps elect a can­di­date that bet­ter reflects the sup­port of a major­i­ty of vot­ers” and “helps to more fair­ly rep­re­sent the full spec­trum of voters.”

But what their mar­ket­ing mate­ri­als won’t tell you is that instant runoff vot­ing has a real­ly awful, jaw-drop­ping glitch of its own. With IRV, it’s actu­al­ly pos­si­ble for a can­di­date to lose an elec­tion by becom­ing more pop­u­lar. Yikes!

If that sounds ridicu­lous to you, then good… because it is ridiculous.

The eas­i­est way to explain this defect is to show it to you.

Below is a sim­u­la­tion cre­at­ed by Nicky Case which shows an imag­i­nary can­di­date going from being on the verge of win­ning to instead los­ing… by becom­ing more pop­u­lar with vot­ers. In the sim­u­la­tion, can­di­date Tra­cy Tri­an­gle is ini­tial­ly win­ning as vot­ers shift towards Tra­cy and away from fel­low can­di­date Steven Square.

But as the video shows, as vot­ers con­tin­ue to move clos­er to Tra­cy,  there comes a point where Tra­cy ends up in a runoff with Hen­ry Hexa­gon… and los­es.

“How often does this actu­al­ly hap­pen in real life?” Case asks rhetor­i­cal­ly, pro­vid­ing the fol­low­ing answer: “There’s a cou­ple con­firmed exam­ples, and math­e­mati­cians esti­mate this glitch would hap­pen about 14.5% of the time. But sad­ly, we can’t know for sure, because gov­ern­ments usu­al­ly don’t release enough info about the bal­lots to recon­struct an IRV elec­tion & dou­ble-check the results.”

“So, not only is Instant Runof­f’s glitch as unde­mo­c­ra­t­ic as First Past The Post’s glitch, it’s pos­si­bly worse – because while FPT­P’s count­ing method is sim­ple and trans­par­ent, Instant Runoff is any­thing but. And a lack of trans­paren­cy is an even dead­lier sin nowa­days, when our trust in gov­ern­ment is already so low.”

A vot­ing sys­tem where a can­di­date can be pun­ished for becom­ing more pop­u­lar is not a vot­ing sys­tem that we should adopt.

NPI has been opposed to instant runoff vot­ing since 2005, when we first took a posi­tion. Oppo­si­tion to IRV is actu­al­ly one of our old­est issue positions.

The Leg­is­la­ture is present­ly con­sid­er­ing a pair of bills that would explic­it­ly autho­rize local gov­ern­ments to adopt instant runoff vot­ing. One of these is Mia Gregerson­’s HB 1722. There is a Sen­ate com­pan­ion, SB 5708, spon­sored by Guy Palumbo.

HB 1722 was heard today in the House State Gov­ern­ment Com­mit­tee and is sched­uled for exec­u­tive ses­sion on Feb­ru­ary 22nd (this Friday).

It may not reach Gov­er­nor Inslee’s desk, but it is cer­tain­ly spark­ing interest.

These bills are a recipe for extreme vot­er con­fu­sion. If this leg­is­la­tion were to be imple­ment­ed, then we’d like­ly soon see a very com­pli­cat­ed bal­lot with plu­ral­i­ty vot­ing being used in some races and instant runoff being used in oth­er races.

That’s because these bills do not man­date a tran­si­tion to instant runoff vot­ing; they only make it an option for cities, coun­ties, and oth­er local gov­ern­ments like ports.

NPI whole­heart­ed­ly agrees that we should con­sid­er aban­don­ing win­ner take all as our vot­ing sys­tem. But if we’re going to say good­bye to first past the post, then the alter­na­tive we adopt should be bet­ter than what we have now, not worse.

Nobel win­ning econ­o­mist and math­e­mati­cian Ken­neth Arrow has the­o­rized that all vot­ing sys­tems where can­di­dates are ranked will ulti­mate­ly be unfair in some way.

The good news is, instant runoff vot­ing and oth­er imple­men­ta­tions of ranked choice are not the only alter­na­tive vot­ing sys­tems out there. There are alter­na­tives avail­able to us that don’t involve rank­ing can­di­dates at all. Like approval vot­ing.

With approval vot­ing, you check the box (or fill in the oval) for every can­di­date that you approve of. So, if you like, say, three of the Demo­c­ra­t­ic can­di­dates cur­rent­ly run­ning for Pres­i­dent of the Unit­ed States, then you could vote for those three.

Here’s a hypo­thet­i­cal bal­lot which con­sists sim­ply of the declared can­di­dates for Pres­i­dent so far for 2020 on the Demo­c­ra­t­ic side:

  • Cory Book­er
  • Eliz­a­beth Warren
  • Kamala Har­ris
  • Kris­ten Gillibrand
  • Julian Cas­tro
  • Tul­si Gabbard
  • Bernie Sanders
  • Amy Klobuchar
  • Pete Buttigieg
  • John Delaney

Wow. Ten con­tenders for the Demo­c­ra­t­ic nom­i­na­tion already! And the field is expect­ed to get even big­ger. Would­n’t it be nice if Demo­c­ra­t­ic vot­ers had the option to express their sup­port for more than one can­di­date? There can only be one nom­i­nee, but plen­ty of Demo­c­ra­t­ic vot­ers are like­ly to be fond of more than one of the can­di­dates, espe­cial­ly with so many good options to choose from.

Wait, pick­ing more than one can­di­date? Does­n’t that vio­late the one-vote-per-per­son rule?” Nicky Case asks in ref­er­ence to approval vot­ing, writ­ing in response: “Well, your vote was nev­er a sin­gle check mark, your vote was always the whole bal­lot. And on this bal­lot, you get to hon­est­ly express all the can­di­dates you approve of, not just your favorite or strate­gic second-favorite.”

If our goal is to improve the vot­er expe­ri­ence to bol­ster par­tic­i­pa­tion and safe­guard the future of our democ­ra­cy, then we should design a bal­lot that encour­ages peo­ple to vote hon­est­ly. So rather than exper­i­ment­ing with glitchy instant runoff vot­ing, (which Pierce Coun­ty already tried and reject­ed and which is being used by sev­er­al locales around the coun­try), Cas­ca­dia should study and test approval voting.

Adjacent posts

  • Enjoyed what you just read? Make a donation

    Thank you for read­ing The Cas­ca­dia Advo­cate, the North­west Pro­gres­sive Insti­tute’s jour­nal of world, nation­al, and local politics.

    Found­ed in March of 2004, The Cas­ca­dia Advo­cate has been help­ing peo­ple through­out the Pacif­ic North­west and beyond make sense of cur­rent events with rig­or­ous analy­sis and thought-pro­vok­ing com­men­tary for more than fif­teen years. The Cas­ca­dia Advo­cate is fund­ed by read­ers like you and trust­ed spon­sors. We don’t run ads or pub­lish con­tent in exchange for money.

    Help us keep The Cas­ca­dia Advo­cate edi­to­ri­al­ly inde­pen­dent and freely avail­able to all by becom­ing a mem­ber of the North­west Pro­gres­sive Insti­tute today. Or make a dona­tion to sus­tain our essen­tial research and advo­ca­cy journalism.

    Your con­tri­bu­tion will allow us to con­tin­ue bring­ing you fea­tures like Last Week In Con­gress, live cov­er­age of events like Net­roots Nation or the Demo­c­ra­t­ic Nation­al Con­ven­tion, and reviews of books and doc­u­men­tary films.

    Become an NPI mem­ber Make a one-time donation


  1. Excel­lent arti­cle! Approval vot­ing is spread­ing — The vot­ers of Far­go, North Dako­ta approved of Approval Vot­ing in their most recent election.

    # by Felix Sargent :: February 21st, 2019 at 3:22 PM
  2. Approval is *not* inher­ent­ly a bet­ter sys­tem. That’s an opin­ion, and you’re wel­come to it, but it’s com­plete­ly disin­gen­u­ous to present it as objec­tive­ly better.

    This is a philo­soph­i­cal ques­tion: should strength of pref­er­ence matter?

    What if there is one can­di­date 80% of vot­ers are “meh” about, they unen­thu­si­as­ti­cal­ly approve, and a sec­ond can­di­date 60% of vot­ers are “YES!” about, excit­ed­ly sup­port­ive? Who deserves to win?

    There’s no objec­tive­ly cor­rect ques­tion, it depends on your per­son­al pref­er­ences. Approval vot­ing means the for­mer should win. RCV means the lat­ter should win.

    It’s also worth not­ing approval isn’t with­out its own flaws, even if you do think a can­di­date 80% of the pop­u­la­tion is “meh” about deserves to beat a can­di­date 60% of the pop­u­la­tion is stoked about.

    Based on how peo­ple tend to think, folks are like­ly to bul­let vote — sup­port only one can­di­date, even if they gen­uine­ly approve of more than one. 

    Why would peo­ple do this? Because they don’t want to risk hurt­ing their favorite by help­ing their favorites rival, and their hon­est sec­ond choice, win by one approval. Con­sid­er a tight race between, say, Bernie, Hillary, and Trump. Even if you pre­fer Bernie but *hon­est­ly* approve of Hillary, and approve them both, and Hillary ends up being Bernie by one vote, then you hurt your favorite can­di­date by vot­ing hon­est­ly and would have been bet­ter off strate­gi­cal­ly only approv­ing of Bernie.

    This isn’t just a the­o­ry — you can see this exact phe­nom­e­na if you look at Dart­mouth col­lege, where approval vot­ing was used for years to elect their stu­dent body before being replaced with plu­ral­i­ty in 2017. More than 80% of vot­ers only ever “approved” of one can­di­date because of this exact phenomena.

    While the bills you men­tion would allow local juris­dic­tions to adopt the instant runoff vot­ing vari­ant of RCV, it would also allow them to adopt the sin­gle trans­fer­able vote (pro­por­tion­al rep­re­sen­ta­tion) vari­ant of RCV.

    Final­ly, Pierce coun­ty should not be held up as a rea­son to not exper­i­ment with RCV. There were many, many unique fac­tors that led to Pierce coun­ty adopt­ing it, and lat­er repeal­ing it, that have not been repli­cat­ed seen in any of the oth­er juris­dic­tions that have adopt­ed RCV. Pierce coun­ty’s expe­ri­ence was an anom­aly:

    If you want to look at the issue objec­tive­ly, you can’t just look at the one out­lier of Pierce coun­ty. Try also tak­ing a look at the var­i­ous RCV expe­ri­ences in Minneapolis/St. Paul, San Fran­cis­co and Oak­land CA, San­ta Fe NM, Cam­bridge MA, Tako­ma Park MD, the entire state of Maine, or oth­ers and see what *their* vot­er expe­ri­ences have been like.

    There *is no per­fect vot­ing sys­tem.* I’m a huge RCV pro­po­nent, and I’ll be the first to tell you that RCV isn’t per­fect — but no sys­tem is, and cer­tain­ly not our cur­rent sys­tem which is the worst of all worlds. To claim that approval is an objec­tive­ly supe­ri­or sys­tem and ignor­ing all its own flaws is intel­lec­tu­al­ly dishonest.

    # by Colin :: February 21st, 2019 at 6:15 PM
    • Col­in, the premise of this post is that instant runoff vot­ing is not a sen­si­ble, supe­ri­or alter­na­tive to the vot­ing sys­tem we cur­rent­ly use. The premise is not that approval vot­ing is objec­tive­ly the best vot­ing method there is and we should adopt it. That is a straw man that you con­struct­ed with your com­ment. We agree there’s no per­fect vot­ing system.

      We pub­lish advo­ca­cy jour­nal­ism here on the Cas­ca­dia Advo­cate. That means that all of our pieces are sub­jec­tive or opin­ion­at­ed by their nature. We have nev­er pre­tend­ed oth­er­wise. We are work­ing for a bet­ter future for our region and coun­try. What we pub­lish here and on our oth­er projects reflects our val­ues, prin­ci­ples, and pol­i­cy directions.

      # by Andrew :: February 22nd, 2019 at 5:22 PM
  3. Some good points here. But, a slight­ly bet­ter ver­sion might be approval/disapproval vot­ing, where­by the vot­er also has the option to dis­ap­prove can­di­dates with a “D” vote. The win­ner would be the can­di­date or can­di­dates with the most net approval votes. This would also be use­ful in con­tests where there are only one or two can­di­dates, enabling the vot­er to “dis­ap­proval” any or all can­di­dates on the ballot.

    # by WaltPeterson :: February 22nd, 2019 at 9:39 AM
  • NPI’s essential research and advocacy is sponsored by: