It’s not worth getting into a big thing about, but as it happens, instant runoff is the Wrong Way to run a single-winner election. I recommend a Condorcet method instead—MAM is good, though in practice you’ll usually have a Condorcet winner so the details of the method won’t matter.
Australian lower house elections run by instant-runoff, so it’s familiar to all. I’ve found voting methods a bit interesting since reading about arrow’s theorem, though, so thanks for the note.
Australian lower house elections run by instant-runoff, so it’s familiar to all.
It does seem that it isn’t possible to declare a Wrong Way to run a single winner election without specifying the agents involved or the desired outcome. :)
You’re right, although syllogism’s response that Australians are familiar with IRV is good. Approval voting is also a good method for cases like this (and is simpler to implement).
But the important thing is not to use that horrible most-top-votes system.
It’s not worth getting into a big thing about, but as it happens, instant runoff is the Wrong Way to run a single-winner election. I recommend a Condorcet method instead—MAM is good, though in practice you’ll usually have a Condorcet winner so the details of the method won’t matter.
IIRC Approval Voting is both close-to-Condorcet and very very simple.
Australian lower house elections run by instant-runoff, so it’s familiar to all. I’ve found voting methods a bit interesting since reading about arrow’s theorem, though, so thanks for the note.
It does seem that it isn’t possible to declare a Wrong Way to run a single winner election without specifying the agents involved or the desired outcome. :)
You’re right, although syllogism’s response that Australians are familiar with IRV is good. Approval voting is also a good method for cases like this (and is simpler to implement).
But the important thing is not to use that horrible most-top-votes system.