Vote for 2 then Instant Runoff:

Election Reform Made Simple

 

This document describes a general election voting selection and tabulation method that attempts to achieve the following goals:

 

1.     Advance a high number of candidates from the primary so that voters have diverse choices.

2.     Reduce vote splitting and strategic voting.

3.     Low likelihood that voting for an additional candidate would harm more preferred candidates.

4.     High likelihood that all voters participate in the instant runoff (few “lost” votes).

5.     High likelihood that successful candidate would win a runoff against all other candidates (including the possibility of a candidate winning by preponderance of 2nd-choice votes).

6.     High likelihood that winner receives support from a majority of voters.

7.     Be suitable for a statewide hand recount: vote tabulation should fit on one piece of paper.

 

These goals can be achieved by the following:

 

1.     Use a Top-4 primary (e.g. plurality) to produce a diverse field of candidates in the general election.

2.     Use the “Vote for 2 then Instant Runoff” method (V2IR) described below to select a winner.

 

Concerns with Popular Existing Methods:

 

RCV/IRV does not allow a compromise candidate to win with a preponderance of 2nd choice votes.

RCV/IRV does not eliminate spoilers because 1st and 2nd choices do not count equally toward reaching the final runoff. 

STAR voting does not allow voters to choose two candidates equally for the purpose of reaching the runoff without losing a say in who wins that runoff.

In STAR voting, giving a nonzero score to a 2nd or higher-choice candidate can harm the 1st choice candidate.

Approval voting allows only binary levels of support for each candidate rather than a range of preferences.

 

Features of the V2IR method:

 

Primary Election: Plurality voting

·      Familiar to voters.

·      Vote splitting mitigated by advancing four candidates to the general election.

·      Likely to advance a diverse set of candidates.

 

General Election:  Vote for 2 then Instant Runoff

·      Simple ranked-choice ballot.

·      Utilizes standard voting methods: “Vote for 2” (or “multiple non-transferable vote”) to select two finalists, followed by an automatic runoff.

·      Optimal resolution of “later-no-harm” vs “friend betrayal” dilemma: The voter decides:

o   Later-no-harm option: Voters may express preferences in all possible runoffs without risk to favored candidates by supporting only one candidate to reach the runoff. No inactivated ballots.

o   No-friend-betrayal (no spoiler) option: If a voter chooses two candidates to reach the runoff, exchanging the 1st and 2nd-rank votes cannot help other candidates.

·      Consensus winner: A candidate can win with few 1st-rank votes but a preponderance of 2nd-rank votes.

·      Majority support: The final winner is determined in a runoff decided by all voters, including those who did not support either finalist.

·      Precinct-level tallying: It is not necessary to record the order of votes on each ballot. For each candidate, tally the number of votes at each rank and the number of higher-ranked votes for other candidates.

 

Sample Ballot:

Rank candidates in order of preference with no more than one candidate per rank and no more than one rank per candidate. Only 1st and 2nd ranks count as votes to reach an automatic runoff election. Leave the 2nd rank blank and rank your second choice 3rd if you do not support your second choice to reach the runoff election. 

 

1st

 

2nd

 

3rd

 

4th

Ape

O

O

O

O

Bee

O

O

O

O

Cat

O

O

O

O

Dog

O

O

O

O

(write-in)

O

O

O

O

(write-in)

O

O

O

O

 

Vote Tabulation using V2IR:

1.     Four candidates are listed on the general election ballot (chosen from a Top-4 primary).

2.     Voters may rank 3 or 4 candidates. Write-in choices are allowed.

3.     Vote for 2: Take the Top 2 candidates having the highest total number of 1st and 2nd-rank votes.

Allowing votes for multiple candidates reduces vote splitting. Equal weighting of 1st and 2nd-rank votes reduces the spoiler effect. In deciding whether or not to rank a 2nd choice, voters have to decide if the prospect of the 1st choice finishing third behind the 2nd choice is better or worse than the prospect of the 2nd choice losing to a different candidate. If the latter (worse), the voter may omit a 2nd rank and vote the second choice as the 3rd rank. The option of a 4th choice guarantees that all voters have a say in the runoff stage (neglecting write-in votes).

4.     Runoff: For the Top 2 runoff, include all votes for which a given candidate is ranked higher than the other.

A 3rd or 4th rank vote only counts in the runoff, so it cannot harm a voter’s 1st and 2nd-ranked candidates.

5.     The candidate with the highest total in the runoff is the winner.

If any voter makes 3 choices among 4 candidates, then that voter has a vote in the runoff.

If every voter makes a 1st and 2nd choice among four candidates in the general election then the winner would receive more than 50% support (in case of a 4-way tie, each candidate would receive 25% of the 1st choices and 25% of the second choices). Support would be even higher when including 3rd choices. However, it should be noted that any non-1st-choice vote may represent disapproval of non-chosen candidates rather than approval of chosen candidates.

 

The vote tally can be done by hand if necessary. For 2nd - 4th rank votes, it is only necessary to keep track of which candidates received higher ranking on that ballot. It is not necessary to keep track of the exact order of votes on each ballot.

 

A simple table for vote tabulation would have one column for each candidate (Table 1). The first three rows of the table are for 1st rank, 2nd rank, 3rd rank, and 4th rank, respectively (3rd and 4th rank rows could be combined without affecting the results). Additional rows are added for each candidate in order to tally votes for different candidates who were ranked lower. This table assumes that six viable candidates have been identified (most likely by prior computer count). In a Top-4 election, this would be the four candidates on the ballot plus the top two write-in candidates.

 

Table 1

                         Candidate ®

Ape

 Bee

Cat

Dog

Eel

Fox

Other

Choice

Behind whom

 

1st rank

 

 

---------------

+1

 

 

 

 

 

 

2nd rank

 

---------------

 

+1

 

 

 

 

 

3rd rank

---------------

 

 

+1

 

 

 

 

4th rank

---------------

 

 

 

 

 

 

Candidates Who Ranked Higher

 

 

 

Ape

-----------

+1

+1

 

 

 

 

Bee

 

-----------

+1

 

 

 

 

Cat

 

 

-----------

 

 

 

 

Dog

 

 

 

-----------

 

 

 

Eel

 

 

 

 

-----------

 

 

Fox

 

 

 

 

 

-----------

 

Other/None

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A ballot ranking candidates in the order (Ape, Bee, Cat) would result in addition of +1 to the totals of each indicated cell in the table. The “Vote for 2” step total sums all 1st & 2nd rank tallies for each candidate. The runoff between the top 2 candidates counts all votes and subtracts the number of votes for which a given candidate was ranked lower than the other (the single cell in the candidate’s column and opponent’s row).

 

 

 

Comparison with other methods:

 

The following table assumes that voters are allowed to rank as many candidates as desired but only choose those whose names are on the ballot (e.g. up to 4 candidates in a 4-way election).

Methods listed are:

RCV/IRV: Ranked Choice Voting with Instant Runoff Voting

STAR: Score Then Automatic Runoff

Approval: Equal votes for any number of candidates

V2IR: Vote for 2 then Instant Runoff

 

Each of these voting methods involves eliminating candidates until a final runoff. The RCV/IRV method successively eliminates candidates with the fewest first-choice votes (with second choices counting as first-choices after a candidate is eliminated). STAR has a runoff between the two candidates with the top cumulative score. V2IR has a runoff between the two candidates with the highest total of first- and second-choice votes. Table entries in bold indicate desirable features.

 

Criterion

RCV/IRV

STAR

Approval

V2IR

Differentiation

Yes

Yes if unequal scores

No

Yes

Later no harm

Yes

No

No

Yes if no 2nd rank vote

Honesty penalty

Yes

Yes if unequal scores

No

No if 2nd rank included

Exclusive majority wins

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Inclusive majority wins

Yes

No

No

No

Inactivated ballots

Yes

No if unequal scores

N/A

No

Monotonicity

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Single ballot reading

No

No

Yes

Yes

Indep. of Irrel. Alt.

No

No

Yes

No

 

Differentiation:  Do voters express different preferences for candidates?

Later no harm: Assigning a rank or score to an additional candidate cannot harm the first-choice candidate. This is a key property of RCV/IRV.

Honesty penalty: Exchanging a voter’s 1st and 2nd choices can help a different candidate. This would encourage strategic voting similar to avoidance of “vote splitting” in plurality elections.

Exclusive majority wins: If >50% of voters support one candidate and no one else, is that candidate guaranteed to win?

Inclusive majority wins: If >50% of voters prefer one candidate but some of these also express support for other candidates, is that candidate guaranteed to win?

Majority wins: Is a candidate with >50% of 1st choice ranks or scores guaranteed to win?

Inactivated ballots:  Is it possible to rank or score all candidates and still have no say in a runoff or elimination?

Monotonicity: Increasing a voter’s rank or score of a candidate cannot harm that candidate. This is considered to be a key advantage of STAR over RCV/IRV.

Single ballot reading: Election result can be determined by looking at each ballot only once.

Independence from irrelevant alternatives: If candidate A defeats candidate B, then changing the scores or ranks of other candidates should not change the winner to B. (For example, rearranging votes or scores of other candidates might result in A being eliminated from the runoff and B winning.)

 

 

 

 

 

Alternative Ballot Design

 

Rank three candidates in order of preference by writing

1, 2, or 3

 

Also select each candidate you approve

Ape

 

O

Bee

 

O

Cat

 

O

Dog

 

O

(write-in)

 

O

(write-in)

 

O

(write-in)

 

O

 

 

 

 

Send comments & suggestions to robert.close@classicalmatter.org.