Ranked Choice Voting

124 readers
0 users here now

Welcome to the Ranked Choice Voting Community!

Voting is broken! Let's fix it.

Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) is a voting system in which voters rank candidates by preference on their ballots. If a candidate wins a majority of first-preference votes, they are declared the winner. If no candidate wins a majority, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated, and votes for that candidate are redistributed to the remaining candidates, based on the next preference on each ballot. This process continues until one candidate has a majority. Learn more about how it works.

Why Ranked Choice Voting?

Community Rules

  1. Respect each other's opinions.
  2. No misinformation. All claims must be backed by credible sources.
  3. Be proactive and informative.

Sister Communities

founded 4 months ago
MODERATORS
1
2
 
 

What is ranked choice voting?

This article is a great overview.

What's happening in my state?

The same article lists some things, and Wikipedia has more details.

Here's what on the ballot this year:

  • Alaska is voting to repeal RCV
  • Arizona is voting on a proposition for non-partisan primaries and RCV
  • Colorado is voting on using RCV
  • Connecticut is evaluating RCV for legislation in 2025
  • District of Columbia is voting on using RCV
  • Idaho is voting on using RCV
  • Missouri is voting on banning RCV altogether
  • Montana is voting on a proposition for non-partisan primaries
  • Nevada is voting on using RCV for federal and state elections
  • Oregon is voting on using RCV for federal and state elections
  • South Dakota is voting on non-partisan top 2 primaries
  • Texas has a group working on ranked choice voting

Register to vote, check your registration, make sure you're in a position to fix voting. It's important. It's not as far away as you think.

3
 
 

TranscriptionPreference count

57.0% (14,915) Labor Party Barbara O'Shea

43.0% (11,254) Greens Amy MacMahor (MP)

  • While the Labor Party is well ahead on the two-candidate preferred count for South Brisbane, there remains a possibility that the LNP will pass Labor on postal votes and the flow of One Nation preferences. Were Labor to slip to third, Labor preferences would re-elect Greens MLA Amy MacMahon. Monday's counting of Absent votes narrowed the primary vote percentage gap between Labor and the LNP from 2.7% to 2.3%.
  • Barbara O'Shea leads by 3,661 votes.
  • Previously held by GRN with margin of 5.3%.
First preference Vote Swing
Greens Amy MacMahon 35.1% (10,119) -2.8%
Labor Party Barbara O'Shea 31.9% (9,221) -2.5%
Liberal National Marita Parkinson 29.7% (8,560) +6.8%
One Nation Richard Henderson 3.3% (946) +1.6%
Others - 0.0% (0) -3.1%

Informal Votes 2.3% (689)

Total Votes 29,535

Results taken from the Qld 2024 Election results for South Brisbane on the ABC 29/10/2024.

I need to preface this by saying that while I prefer proportional systems, if you're going to have a single-winner system I have never seen one I prefer over IRV.

Some context for those not familiar with Australian politics: by coincidence, the parties here are ranked by first preference in order from left to right. As a general rule Greens voters will prefer Labor over anyone else, and most Labor voters will vote 2 Greens. One Nation voters mostly vote 2 for Liberal National (LNP). And most LNP voters will vote Labor before Greens. But some voters are weird: you will see people who vote 1 One Nation, 2 Greens or Labor; etc.

Obviously as advocates of IRV, we usually talk about how it lets you vote honestly without worrying about strategic voting or the fear that your honest vote may increase the chance of your least-favourite candidate winning. I think this is a result that shows the interesting, rare corner case where that isn't entirely true. It's not an argument for going back to FPTP, because it's still much rarer and less destructive than it is there.

In this case, One Nation will obviously be eliminated first and their votes distributed in a way that could prove kingmaker, but doesn't directly affect this discussion.

What actually matters is where the LNP finishes, once all votes have been counted and One Nation votes redistributed. If the LNP stays where they are in third, the LNP will be eliminated and most likely their votes will be redistributed to help Labor win. If the LNP can squeeze just a few more votes out (very possible, given many of the uncounted votes are probably early and postal votes—and the fact that the LNP was doing much better in the polls up until a few days before the election) and finish in 2nd, Labor will be eliminated, and their preferences will likely result in the Greens being elected.

Since most LNP votes would prefer to see Labor win than the Greens, an LNP voter would actually prefer that their candidate finish in third than in 2nd. They would have been better of voting dishonestly for Labor 1st.

A quick aside: One Nation voters could prove kingmaker because if all of them fit the mould of the modal One Nation voter, the LNP would easily fit in 2nd, resulting in a Greens win. Thus, a strategic One Nation voter with full prior knowledge should vote 2 Labor instead of 2 LNP, 3 Labor.

Of course, this should not be construed as an argument against IRV. It requires prior knowledge of how the electorate will vote to take advantage of it, which is a far cry from how easy and even inevitable strategic voting is under FPTP. Look at the seat of Maiwar just across the river, where the Greens are likely to win but the LNP is very, very close and could possibly still get over the line based on postal votes.

If LNP voters were to vote strategically here in the same way I am suggesting South Brisbane voters should, it would remove that chance that the LNP could end up actually winning.

And then there's also the fact that in South Brisbane, the LNP was never going to win either way, and they don't care too much whether it's Labor or Greens. They probably care more about the funding that parties get based on how many first preference votes they receive.


TL;DR right-wing LNP voters could have voted strategically to increase the chance the centrist Labor will win rather than the left-wing Greens.