Some proponents of municipal election reform advocate for the adoption of Instant Runoff Voting (IRV), a method that allows voters to rank multiple candidates according to their preferences. Although supporters claim that IRV is superior to the traditional primary-runoff election system, research on IRV is limited. We analyze data taken from images of more than 600,000 ballots cast by voters in four recent local elections. We document a problem known as ballot “exhaustion,” which results in a substantial number of votes being discarded in each election. As a result of ballot exhaustion, the winner in all four of our cases receives less than a majority of the total votes cast, a finding that raises serious concerns about IRV and challenges a key argument made by the system's proponents.

Discover an innovative approach that reshapes our understanding of electoral systems. Score Then Automatic Runoff Voting explores a hybrid method combining the precision of score voting with the clarity of automatic runoffs. This book is crucial for those interested in the future of democratic representation and electoral integrity. You'll uncover the unique aspects of this system and its potential influence on election outcomes, voter satisfaction, and democracy. Here's a brief look inside: 1: STAR Voting-How STAR voting merges score voting with automatic runoff for more accurate election results. 2: Approval Voting-Understanding approval voting and its role in candidate evaluation based on voter acceptance. 3: Score Voting-Exploring score voting fundamentals and its advantage in capturing voter preferences. 4: Condorcet Method-Identifying the most preferred candidate through pairwise comparisons using the Condorcet method. 5: Copeland's Method-Learn how Copeland's method uses pairwise victories to determine the best candidate. 6: Monotonicity Criterion-Why increasing support for a candidate shouldn't harm their chances (monotonicity criterion). 7: Bucklin Voting-Multi-round Bucklin voting to find a majority winner. 8: Ranked Pairs-Facilitating ranking based on majority preferences using ranked pairs. 9: Condorcet Winner Criterion-The importance of selecting a candidate who wins in every head-to-head match. 10: Participation Criterion-Encouraging voter turnout through the participation criterion. 11: Majority Criterion-Ensuring broad support for the winning candidate via the majority criterion. 12: Mutual Majority Criterion-Favoring candidates with cross-sectional support under the mutual majority criterion. 13: Nanson's Method-Eliminating less popular candidates to find a consensus choice using Nanson's method. 14: Condorcet Loser Criterion-Ensuring a universally losing candidate isn’t elected. 15: Reversal Symmetry-Exploring fairness in electoral systems through reversal symmetry. 16: Kemeny–Young Method-Aggregating preferences for candidate ranking via the Kemeny–Young method. 17: Later-No-Harm Criterion-Ensuring lower rankings don’t harm candidates' chances (later-no-harm criterion). 18: Instant-Runoff Voting-Eliminating least popular candidates in rounds until a majority winner emerges. 19: Majority Judgment-Evaluating candidates through graded assessments using majority judgment. 20: Ranked Voting-How ranked voting systems impact voter choice and representation. 21: Comparison of Electoral Systems-Comparing strengths and weaknesses of various systems in different contexts. Score Then Automatic Runoff Voting offers a deep dive into the future of electoral innovation. By engaging with this guide, you'll enhance your understanding of voting methods and their democratic implications. Stay ahead in the evolving world of elections.

This study uses multiple methods to compare campaign styles, voter turnout, and diversity of the Board of Supervisors in San Francisco before and after their implementation in 2004 of Instant Runoff Voting (IRV)--also known as Ranked Choice Voting--a system that allows voters to rank three candidates instead of choosing just one. There has been very little empirical analysis of this new voting system, which is being implemented by increasing numbers of municipalities throughout the United States. To determine whether or not IRV may lead to improved democratic outcomes, this study examines negativity and cooperation in campaigns, turnout data, and the demographics of who is elected before and after the institution of IRV in San Francisco. Original data was gathered and analyzed and interviews conducted to evaluate whether or not IRV leads to enhanced democratic capacities compared to traditional runoff elections. Specifically, mass mailers from the years 2002, 2004, 2006, and 2008 were analyzed for both degree of negativity and whether or not the mailers added valuable information or simply attacked opposing candidates. The study also examined the degree of cooperation that existed under the new system. Voter turnout and the diversity of the elected Board of Supervisors were also analyzed, before and after IRV, and interviews added context to the research. The results indicate that IRV does lead to improved democratic processes and outcomes by creating a less negative and more cooperative campaign environment. Additionally, turnout is higher under IRV, even during presidential elections. Finally, in the case of the demographic makeup of the Board of Supervisors in San Francisco, after IRV there was a trend toward increased minority representation, although there are still very few female supervisors holding office.