CRV correction to Vermont report's section 18

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 (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