Political scientist and electoral methods expert Henry Milner examines France’s two-round runoff system: "chaotic, but it allows voters to let off steam"
1. Instant runoff/ranked choice voting also lets you vote for your most preferred option in the first round, and still cast an effective vote for the more preferred of the final two. The big problem with the current French system is that it occasionally as in this instance lets more than two candidates through to the final plurality round
2. The "heart vs head" distinction and the reference to strategic voting reflects the continuing hold of plurality thinking. In a typical run-off (instant or otherwise) you vote for the most preferred candidate in each round. If your most preferred candidate is eliminated, you vote for the more preferred of those yo make it it to the final round.
3. Similarly, the reference to "letting off steam" is unrelated to run-offs. Voters can let off steam in all systems, casting a vote that doesn't reflect their true preferences to "send a message". The most notable examples are referendums, where a No vote is often just an expression of general discontent.
If you don't think the party system is working well, that can be a feature rather than a bug. IRV allows the election of independents, which has become common in Australia.
I don't follow Australian politics at all closely, but my guess is that the few independents that get elected are dropouts from the existing parties. If the number is more than a handful, it would indicate that a new party is in the formation stage.
I have written somewhat positively about the Australian system, but I doubt that it would work in American national elections. It requires voters to be informed or interested enough to rank candidates, rather than just choose one, or vote for a party as with PR. (Or a party and a candidate as in Germany).
When I was researching comparative political knowledge, I did not find Aussies to be especially politically knowledgeable. They do turn out, but that has a lot to do with compulsory voting, something I doubt Americans would accept.
Yeah, two-round system is junk, but one-round is even worse.
1. Instant runoff/ranked choice voting also lets you vote for your most preferred option in the first round, and still cast an effective vote for the more preferred of the final two. The big problem with the current French system is that it occasionally as in this instance lets more than two candidates through to the final plurality round
2. The "heart vs head" distinction and the reference to strategic voting reflects the continuing hold of plurality thinking. In a typical run-off (instant or otherwise) you vote for the most preferred candidate in each round. If your most preferred candidate is eliminated, you vote for the more preferred of those yo make it it to the final round.
3. Similarly, the reference to "letting off steam" is unrelated to run-offs. Voters can let off steam in all systems, casting a vote that doesn't reflect their true preferences to "send a message". The most notable examples are referendums, where a No vote is often just an expression of general discontent.
My problem with Instant runoff type systems is that it focuses attention on the individual candidate and not on the candidate's party.
If you don't think the party system is working well, that can be a feature rather than a bug. IRV allows the election of independents, which has become common in Australia.
Very informative. Thank you.
I don't follow Australian politics at all closely, but my guess is that the few independents that get elected are dropouts from the existing parties. If the number is more than a handful, it would indicate that a new party is in the formation stage.
Henry, apropos your comment:
"Australian women lead a revolution of independent candidates"
Ranked choice voting election shakes up the establishment
https://democracysos.substack.com/p/australian-women-lead-a-revolution
Steve,
I have written somewhat positively about the Australian system, but I doubt that it would work in American national elections. It requires voters to be informed or interested enough to rank candidates, rather than just choose one, or vote for a party as with PR. (Or a party and a candidate as in Germany).
When I was researching comparative political knowledge, I did not find Aussies to be especially politically knowledgeable. They do turn out, but that has a lot to do with compulsory voting, something I doubt Americans would accept.