Misleading quotes: "IRV does not favor or hurt any particular group... This reform does not give advantage or disadvantage to ... major parties or minor parties."
Correction: This is simply flat-out false. IRV has led, in every country that has used it, to self-reinforcing 2-party domination, same as with plurality voting. This is agreed by analysts in those countries. It is not in dispute. It is particularly clear in Australia (whose house is 2-party dominated since it uses IRV, but whose senate is not, since it does not use IRV) and Malta (massive 2-party domination) which are the two countries with the greatest historical experience using IRV. Indeed according to the Australian analysts at http://www.australianpolitics.com/voting/systems/preferential.shtml (Australia is the country with the most IRV experience) the "disadvantages of the Preferential [IRV] System" include "it promotes a two-party system to the detriment of minor parties and independents." And see, e.g. this paper.
In contrast, the two-riound runoff system does permit more than 2 parties to stably exist (cf. France, many South American countries), which is an example of how subtle changes in voting method can favor minor parties a lot more...
Misleading quote: "Voters have every incentive to vote their true beliefs"
Correction: In fact this election example shows that IRV voters, by foolishly voting honestly, can cause their most-hated last-ranked candidate to get elected, whereas if they'd refused to vote, a different (hence better in their eyes) candidate would have won.
Misleading quote: "There also is no reason for voters not to rank as many candidates as they want"
Correction: In fact this election example (see note 2 there) shows that IRV voters, by foolishly mentioning their honest second choice, can cause their most-hated candidate to be elected. If they had refused to specify a second choice, then the election winner would have been better in their view.
Return to main page
Return to Vermont Report Table of Contents