Not Signed-In
Select and review.
22 APRIL 2011

Instant Runoff Voting is 'extremely difficult to manipulate'

"The most striking result is the difference between the manipulability of the Hare [IRV] system and the other systems. Because the [IRV] system considers only 'current' first preferences, it appears to be extremely difficult to manipulate. To be successful, a coalition must usually throw enough support to losing candidates to eliminate the sincere winner (the winner when no preferences are misrepresented) at an early stage, but still leave an agreed upon candidate with sufficient first–place strength to win. This turns out to be quite difficult to do."

(Chamberlin, Cohen and Coombs, 1984)

John R. Chamberlin, Jerry. L. Cohen and Clyde H. Coombs (1984). 'Social Choice Observed: Five Presidential Elections of the American Psychological Association.' The Journal of Politics 46(2): pp. 479–502.

Fig.1 Chair Judge Geraldine Sell, green sweater, sorted ballots with dozens of others during the first day of hand–counting in Minneapolis, Wednesday, Nov. 4, 2009. The hand–counting is required in Minneapolis because of the instant runoff voting process. (MPR Photo/Jeffrey Thompson)

1

TAGS

advocacy • agenda manipulation • Alternative Votedemocracydemocratic participation • electoral candidate • fairnessimpartialityInstant Runoff VotingIRV • lawful • legitimate • Parliamentparticipationpolitical partiespoliticsprogressive political changereform our electoral systems • robust • Thomas Hare • unbiased • valid • voting system • winner

CONTRIBUTOR

Simon Perkins
Sign-In

Sign-In to Folksonomy

Can't access your account?

New to Folksonomy?

Sign-Up or learn more.