Legislation

Campaigns

Get Involved

In the News

In the Classroom

FAQs

Exit Polls

Why Use IRV Replace Plurality Elections Replace Runoff Elections Replace Primary Elections Military and Overseas Voters

How Does IRV Work Flash Demonstration PowerPoint Presentation Instruction Video Flowchart Text Additional videos/animations Computerized Counting Proceedures

Who Uses IRV U.S. Governments Around the World Student Governments and Organizations

Who Supports IRV Newspapers Elected Officials Organizations

Replace Runoff Elections

Problem: Some jurisdictions in the United States already require majority support instead of using plurality elections; however, they achieve majority rule through a two round runoff, an approach with a number of problems. First, holding a second election doubles the election administration costs funded by taxpayers. A second election also means candidates must raise more money in order to compete, thereby increases the influence of money in politics. Additionally, because most races are decided in the first round of voting, the races that go to a runoff often have significantly lower turnout in the decisive runoff election. This reduces the democratic accountability of the runoff winner.

Solution: Under IRV, voters rank candidates in order of preference on a single ballot. If a candidate receives a majority of first choices, he or she is elected. If no candidate receives a majority, the candidate with the fewest first choices is eliminated. Voters who ranked the eliminated candidate first now have their ballots counted for their second choice. This process continues until one candidate earns a majority.

With a traditional runoff system, a voter whose favorite candidate does not advance to the runoff essentially is able to express his or her second choice among the remaining candidates. IRV offers this same opportunity in a single election with a ranked ballot. Voters are able to express their second (or third, fourth, etc.) choices in one trip to the polls. Governments, and therefore taxpayers, save money through reduced election administration costs. Candidates do not need to raise as much money as before in order to be competitive.

San Francisco implemented IRV to replace city runoff elections in 2004 and has saved hundreds of thousands of dollars each year since that time. North Carolina implemented IRV for statewide judicial vacancy elections in 2007 and expects to see substantial savings.