# Instant Runoff / Ranked Choice - Are people too stupid to understand this? **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [November 11, 2010, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/instant-runoff-ranked-choice-are-people-too-stupid-to-understand-this/560319 "2010-11-11T16:19:13Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 13\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Pleonast](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pleonast/32/1183_2.png) [@Pleonast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pleonast)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2010, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/instant-runoff-ranked-choice-are-people-too-stupid-to-understand-this/560319/21 "2010-11-12T16:45:19Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Suppose that there were an election for President, with candidates Dennis Kucinich, Barack Obama, Mitt Romney, and Sarah Palin. In such an election, under approval voting, I would vote “approve” for Kucinich and Obama, and “disapprove” for Romney and Palin. But suppose instead that Romney and Palin had both already quit the election, and it was just between Obama and Kucinich. They’re the same candidates, and I still like each of them the same amount; would I still vote “approve” for both of them? Of course not: That would be a waste of my vote. I’d choose which one I like better (in my case, Kucinich), approve him, and disapprove Obama. Suppose, instead, that it were only Romney and Palin in the race: Again, I would be a fool to disapprove both, so I would make my voice heard by holding my nose and approving Romney, but disapproving Palin. So in other words, even though I definitely like Obama better than Romney, there are some situations where I would vote to disapprove Obama, and some situations where I would vote to approve Romney. How is that not gaming the system with strategic voting? It’s not gaming the system because you’re comparing apples and oranges. An election consisting of Obama vs Kucinich is not the same as Romney vs Palin. You’re changing your votes because the candidates are changing. ---
**Author:** ![Tamerlane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tamerlane/32/7602_2.png) [@Tamerlane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tamerlane)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2010, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/instant-runoff-ranked-choice-are-people-too-stupid-to-understand-this/560319/22 "2010-11-12T17:34:39Z")
> [@thelurkinghorror](#): > > The correct answer is that Don Perata is a colossal asshole with entitlement and possible corruption issues, and is being a sore loser. Yup. I’ve never been a fan. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2010, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/instant-runoff-ranked-choice-are-people-too-stupid-to-understand-this/560319/23 "2010-11-12T17:37:08Z")
> [@](#): > > It’s not gaming the system because you’re comparing apples and oranges. An election consisting of Obama vs Kucinich is not the same as Romney vs Palin. You’re changing your votes because the candidates are changing. Except the candidates I’m voting on aren’t changing. Romney is the same person no matter whom he’s running against, but sometimes I approve him, and sometimes I disapprove him. Likewise Obama. ---
**Author:** ![Giles](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/giles/32/60_2.png) [@Giles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giles)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2010, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/instant-runoff-ranked-choice-are-people-too-stupid-to-understand-this/560319/24 "2010-11-12T17:48:59Z")
Yes, in approval voting your vote can change depending on who the other candidates are, and on how well each is likely to poll. For example, in a three-way contest between Obama, Clinton and Palin for President: (1) If I know that Palin will poll very poorly (i.e., less than 30%), and cannot possibly win, I will vote for just one out of Obama and Clinton, because I do prefer one to the other, even though I prefer either to Palin. (2) If I know that Palin is likely to poll very well, and has a good chance of winning, then I’ll vote for both Obama and Clinton. I don’t want to risk that both will lose to Palin. So I’m not going to vote for a less preferred candidate over a more preferred candidate (as can easily happen in instant-runoff voting), but the decision on how many to vote for is a strategic one. ---
**Author:** ![Pleonast](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pleonast/32/1183_2.png) [@Pleonast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pleonast)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2010, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/instant-runoff-ranked-choice-are-people-too-stupid-to-understand-this/560319/25 "2010-11-12T17:49:12Z")
An election isn’t held to determine a candidate’s absolute popularity, but to select one candidate among several. So the entire slate of candidates is important when deciding one’s votes. We should expect votes to change when the slate changes. ---
**Author:** ![CaliSurfer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/7ba0ec/32.png) [@CaliSurfer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CaliSurfer)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2010, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/instant-runoff-ranked-choice-are-people-too-stupid-to-understand-this/560319/26 "2010-11-12T19:04:26Z")
YouTube provides some great educational videos on RCV, since it is a complex method to wrap your head around. Giles gives an example, but videos help those who are visual learners. Here are some pro/cons that can help you see how it can (or can’t) work. [http://www.youtube.com/sjvoter](http://www.youtube.com/sjvoter) [http://www.youtube.com/fairvote](http://www.youtube.com/fairvote) Fairvote is very simplistic, while sjvoter shows some real-life examples. For me, an election in June, when all the state, county, and fed elections are running, and a run-off in Nov at the general election is preferable. It doesn’t add a “special runoff” election, and doesn’t cost much for the benefit of democracy. That’s how all counties in CA do it with the exception of SF. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2010, 4:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/instant-runoff-ranked-choice-are-people-too-stupid-to-understand-this/560319/27 "2010-11-16T04:37:17Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > By contrast, in an instant-runoff voting system, I would always cast my ballot as preferring Kucinich over Obama, Obama over Romney, and Romney over Palin. No matter what subset of candidates is actually running, my rankings would still stay consistent. Yes. On the other hand, you have actual preferences there. Imagine a city council election with ten candidates trying to fill three seats: Thagirlihated N. Highschool Marijuana A. D. Vocate T. Quiet Incumbent Z. Krupt Incumbant Kay Thule Oofoggin Skald the Rhymer Yorcule Nayber Gene Eric Biznessman D. R. Occupant Ramone Johnson Do you have actual preferences for most of them, or do you just pick an order at random? I like STV/IRV, but it does create a lot of arbitrary data out of nothing due to people just numbering non-fave, non-hated candidates at random. That said, since I said “three seats,” I would still consider STV mathematically superior to approval voting. Approval voting overvalues pluralities & is very swingy, STV is more proportional. If it were one seat, I might support approval voting. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2010, 5:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/instant-runoff-ranked-choice-are-people-too-stupid-to-understand-this/560319/28 "2010-11-16T05:15:44Z")
> [@](#): > > Do you have actual preferences for most of them, or do you just pick an order at random? I like STV/IRV, but it does create a lot of arbitrary data out of nothing due to people just numbering non-fave, non-hated candidates at random. Then again, if my choice is truly random, then it’ll probably be either balanced out by other people choosing at random, or swamped by people choosing non-randomly between those same candidates. And even if the election is decided by my random voting, I don’t see that as all that big a deal, since I am, by postulate, indifferent between those candidates. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2010, 4:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/instant-runoff-ranked-choice-are-people-too-stupid-to-understand-this/560319/29 "2010-11-18T04:44:42Z")
Fair point. Just don’t vote for ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2010, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/instant-runoff-ranked-choice-are-people-too-stupid-to-understand-this/560319/30 "2010-11-18T20:03:35Z")
Uh, oh, looks like **Skald** managed to “silence” **foolsguinea** before he could finish that post. ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2010, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/instant-runoff-ranked-choice-are-people-too-stupid-to-understand-this/560319/31 "2010-11-18T20:08:24Z")
Don’t blame me, I voted for fnord ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2010, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/instant-runoff-ranked-choice-are-people-too-stupid-to-understand-this/560319/32 "2010-11-18T21:05:27Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > Yes. On the other hand, you have actual preferences there. Imagine a city council election with ten candidates trying to fill three seats: > > Thagirlihated N. Highschool > Marijuana A. D. Vocate > T. Quiet Incumbent > Z. Krupt Incumbant > Kay Thule Oofoggin > Skald the Rhymer > Yorcule Nayber > Gene Eric Biznessman > D. R. Occupant > Ramone Johnson > > Do you have actual preferences for most of them, or do you just pick an order at random? I would write in John Ya Ya, or maybe I.C. Weiner. And the Lizard People, of course. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2010, 4:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/instant-runoff-ranked-choice-are-people-too-stupid-to-understand-this/560319/33 "2010-11-19T04:44:54Z")
I’d support basically any system other than winner-take-all balloting. In practice, avoiding “Split-vote” effects is the important thing, and both IRV and approval voting handle that problem. Our current system does not. The wiki article on [instant runoff](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting) shows an example where IRV can produce odd results. So I have a weak preference for approval voting. Range voting would be fine as well. But in most cases, candidates are chosen on the basis of left/right and more corrupt/less corrupt: the simplicity of the actual selection make IRV paradoxes typically moot. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/instant-runoff-ranked-choice-are-people-too-stupid-to-understand-this/560319.md?page=1)