MPR News: Instant Runoff Voting Explained

On Tuesday, Nov. 8, St. Paul, Minn. will hold its first instant runoff voting election. Minneapolis started using IRV (aka ranked choice voting) in 2009. MPR's Curtis Gilbert and Molly Bloom explain how the new system works.

[@blowc1612]

Who else is here because of the runoffs in 2020?

[@alycejunker]

Yes! And this was the simplest most wonderful explanation!

[@MomoHitsujiOwO]

Same, man Georgia is intense

[@echo3lima]

Sameeeeeee hahah

[@Knightmessenger]

I'm here because I'm trying to find every video that covers this to help with the campaign to get it on the ballot in my state. What happened at the US Capitol in early 2021 only shows why this is needed more ugently.

[@TrentTube]

brilliant. would make me feel like my vote counted more, it would allow for more than two candidates to have a chance, and it would help fight the terrible polarity and winner-take-all effect of the current system.

[@ekf5018]

Holy crap this makes so much sense, thanks for the great visual explanation

[@cactustactics]

Great video by the way, the stack of sticky notes is a fantastic visual to describe what's happening. We're having a referendum in Britain on using this system in national elections, so I might end up using it to help explain it to people. Thanks!

[@Rgmenkera]

Who else was annoyed that the post-its didn't line up vertically?

[@FredrickTheMoose2007]

🤣

[@markmonnin]

I love that this is short and easy to understand. Well done.

[@TrishTruitt]

Very simple and absolutely brilliant!

[@paradox4878]

Purple is the best color. This absolutely proves that ranked choice voting works.

[@aresmars2003]

A nice visual demonstration, using piles of colored post-it notes to show choice elimination and vote transfers. This is exactly how a runoff process works. The main weakness is in IRV (over a real runoff) you have to choose on one ballot, while in a real runoff you get a a chance to look at the other choices again after your favorite is eliminated.

[@Luigi_NDLN]

Ok I do a writing explain .... A 35% of 1st preferences B 30% of 1st preferences C 25% of 1st preferences D 20% of 1st preferences Nobody has the absolute majority. Now eliminating D we look to the other preferences of D. A 35% of 1st preferences +5% of other preferences= 40% of votes B 30% of 1st preferences + 4% of other preferences = 34% of votes C 25% of 1st preferences+ 12 % of other preferences =37% of votes Nobody has the absolute majority. Now eliminating B we look to the other preferences of B. A 40% of votes + 6% of other preferences C 37% of votes +14% of other preferences A 46% B 51% B won

[@ledzeppelin1212]

So this sounds a bit like ranked-choice voting, correct?

[@ericvulgate]

nice simple explanation of a rational voting system

[@yash1152]

the sticky notes stack make it instantly clear where the votes go. simple _and_ brilliant.

[@yash1152]

a later remake of this one exists titled "How does ranked-choice voting work?" from 2013-10-29

[@juxtn]

This is perhaps the best visual to explain the redistribution of the under-voters second, or third, preference. I think places that institute IRV, then repeal it really don't understand the system.

[@RWFGHNSRH]

so purple was goint to win any way you just added some few steps that ended up the same as a normal voting

[@Luna.3.3.3]

I don't think we have 'run off' here in Canada, but since I watch a lot of American news politics, I had no idea what this meant. THANK YOU ! For the PERFECT, SIMPLE explanation! There should be a channel called 'POLITICS FOR DUMMIES 101" lol. ~Great! ~Thanks again ☺️

[@neestovekin8251]

In Canada the wiki says we call this method "ranked choice voting" (though to be fair, I've never heard of that being used either!)

[@Luna.3.3.3]

@@neestovekin8251 I've never heard of it! Thanks.

[@ajuk1]

Can you add "alternative vote" to the tags so that people in the UK find this?

[@maxhess3151]

This is how we should elect our president: 200 million Post-It notes.

[@cactustactics]

@SilentScreamvideos No probs :) It's not just when it's close either, say 30% voted blue, 25% voted purple, 22% voted yellow and 23% voted pink- they all voted for their favourites, but the purple yellow and pink voters all really hate blue.If we just went with the 1st choice (the First Past The Post system) blue would win even though 70% are anti-blue and would prefer ANY other to win.So this system goes for a result the majority of voters support,it's not always the leader after the 1st choice

[@crmathman]

Unfortunately, IRV is only used in municipal elections in Minneapolis, and if passed next week, in St. Paul. Other elections, such as for governor, will still be done the same way as it has been.

[@vincentyan8114]

What if there are two / three colours winning the same fewest votes in the first counting? In this case which colour should be eliminated?

[@AhmedTheCoder]

nice, t helped me with problem set (runoff) CS50.

[@hotdog1765]

thanks, i was baffled until now

[@mssedmebich]

You get one vote. Make your choice

[@TheDiamondStylz]

Ohhh I like this way much better

[@takepartlive]

Folks should vote more!

[@pmheart6]

Why not use bucklin? Why eliminate Yellow and Blue just because they were not top. I mean What if the purple, 100% of the purple and/or pink people liked yellow or blue as there second choice. That means 15 yellows or 17 blues vs the 11 for purple. Heck, if we are counting second choices, why not count purple's (and pink's) second choice if 4 of them had been for pink, they would have won. All three options would mean the more highly approved of person for all would have been a winner earlier. the only way we got to a winner here was after looking at 3rd choices when a winner could have been found after just looking at EVERYONE'S second choice. Kind of an instant run off to approval where you look at everyone 's second choice, and don't eliminate a low first choice when they could have been actually liked by MORE people!!!

[@bsabruzzo]

Patrick Tyrus "Why eliminate Yellow and Blue just because they were not top." In theory, in an run-off, if people voted for pink and purple in the first round as their first choice, the chances of them voting in round 2 for a new choice is nearly zero, especially if the vote takes place seconds after the first. After all, if you wanted purple to win and the second round still has purple as a choice, why would you suddenly want purple to not win? Second round doesn't mean second choice.

[@pmheart6]

Benjamin Abruzzo because if most of the pink voters is vehemently opposed to Purple, and would rather have yellow or blue, and they would rather have had yellow or blue over purple. ---- Bucklin is like approval voting, but you don't count the lowest denominator at first. Heck purple may have had a majority in the first round. Remember, they are not immediately voting again, but have already put down there second and third choices. Don't you think those 9 pink voters would have wanted someone they actually approved of. I see a lot of support for blue in the pink, purple, and yellow stacks (I see several with blue poking out from the next choice).. Because Perhaps 4 of those 5 pink voters prefer blue and .4 of those 7 purple voters preferred blue - We already know 3 of those new purple votes would have wanted blue as there first choice. so 4pink, 4 purple, and 5 blue = 13 vs 11 approval by the end of the second round that's 65 vs 55% (Of course that last pink could have gone yellow or purple) a tie breaker could reverse it seeing who had more earlier. As those are the more passionate higher choice votes.

[@bsabruzzo]

Patrick Tyrus "Don't you think those 9 pink voters would have wanted someone they actually approved of." Those 9 pink voters, when asked, would say they want pink over all others. Only if pink were not an option would they want their second choice. You stay with a voters first choice because that choice is still an option and would you rather have your first choice vote over your second or third? For example the voting goes like this in the video: First round Yellow 3 Purple 7 Pink 5 Blue 5 Well, it's obvious Yellow wouldn't win (in a simple election purple would), so they get to change their vote to their second choice. If this were a regular run off, everybody would vote again and because purple is still in the race, those who voted purple would still vote purple. The same with pink and blue. Yellow, because their candidate was not in the run off, would have to revote and they would vote for their second choice. In your questions: "4 of those 5 pink voters prefer blue and .4 of those 7 purple voters preferred blue", the answer is, then they would have voted blue rather than purple or pink. Say you went to a restaurant and were given 4 options, fish, steak, chicken or vegetarian. The group you are with can only pick one and the numbers were like the video. Fish 3 Vegetarian 7 Chicken 5 Steak 5 In video, the Vegetarians would remain voting Vegetarian. In your example, they'd suddenly change to Chicken or Steak. The second round of voting (or the second choice) I guarantee you, because Vegetarian is still an option, those who voted for it would remain the same. "We already know 3 of those new purple votes would have wanted blue as there first choice." No, they would want blue as their second. In the video we see that the Fish votes went to the Vegetarian or Chicken. Only if Vegetarian had to would they vote Fish or Chicken because of the meat. They would vote Vegetarian as long as it is a possibility. Meanwhile the carnivores were somewhat interchangeable, but the two low fat options would rather no eat Steak than go there. In your scenario, you tell Vegetarians their choice won't matter in round two. In which case, they would never put out an option for number two and maybe not vote, leaving the group entirely. They would never be served.

[@pmheart6]

Benjamin Abruzzo what if you swapped Vegetarian with Steak. Steak is an ultimate winner. Its a mainstay, There are a lot of non-red meat eaters that will pick fish or even chicken, over a red meat. Here 2 of the fish people were like ok, lets go with steak. with one saying I picked fish because I don't like red meat, but I am ok with chicken. Now if we are looking at second choices, lets look at everyone's second choice. after all we want greatest approval. If 4 of the 7 red meat people say hey, as a second choice, I am cool with vegetarian. I hate those beaked animals. -- NOW Veg Jumps from 5 to 9. and if 4 of those chicken people are like hey I hate red meat. I'd rather eat vegetarian. Thus, my second choice is veg. That puts 13 votes to vegetarian above the 11 for red meat. In conclusion, vegetarian is a natural default for many picky eaters. In an election, its pretty much the same way. Red (Republicans) generally hate Blue (Democrats). Often, they vote for the lesser evil. If they can vote for Perot, Ron Paul, John Anderson, etc. they might go for that. We are kinda splitting hairs. At one point, we point out that we are not voting again. We are just moving to the second tier of voting that's already happened. Lets look at the Louisiana Elections Yesterday Here people will actually vote again. But lets say we went with approval voting (Not full approval voting (***), but instant run off (i.e. Bucklin) Mary Landrieu(D) 42.08% Bill Cassidy(R) 40.96% Rob Maness(R) 13.76% Lets Say that 35 of Mary's 42 percent, and 35 of Bill's 41% like rob maness That's a 70% approval rating in the second round. That is a candidate 70% of the people can get behind. As it stands now, lets say they split Rob's voters, 6% to Mary and 7% to Bill That's 48 to 47 Plus splitting the rest of the vote, and we have two bi-polar options where one side only wins by a slight percentage, leaving nearly 50% hating the winner, and over the term, half of the ones that voted for the candidate of there choice hate them too. This pendulum swing, and lack of approval is what has really destroyed the US political system under First Past the Post, and IRV is still First past the post, but Bucklin is Instant runoff towards approval. *** With full blown approval voting, Vallian Senegal(D) 0.26 Might win with everyone approving, but that was everyone's 5th choice when a clear winner was had in round two p.s. not only do we have a severely bi-polar and potentially close race with nearly half the population voting hating the other candidate (Probably pretty closely mirrored by the non-voting public, or worse, they are not voting because there is no hope of electing someone they "approve of"), .... thus we will probably have even less turnout/participation because no one cares enough to vote for the "lesser of two evils" We already saw only 1,470,692 submit a vote out of 4.5 million residents of Louisiana. that's less than 1/3rd of the population. NOTE: The south african elected government was deemed an illigedimate government due to low voter turnout

[@pmheart6]

Patrick Tyrus extraman111 has a point, and legislators tried to solve it in the past (mostly with Bucklin, but it pertains to any IRV - The solution forcing people to vote for multiple people was deemed unconstitutional) if people only vote for one person, there may be a point that no one gets a majority. At which point, an actual run off would be required. MPR News: Instant Runoff Voting Explained

[@Flyerman777]

Did georgia really choose this as a backup

[@rickiex]

come on.....this is far too logical, fair, and sane of a system to use......

[@TheSuperSupreme]

Nope still don't get it.

[@deldia]

This isn't a GREAT example because purple would win if was most and it won majority too. Better example would be a candidate losing in first round and winning in the second round.

[@southern_smacker]

Rename this video to : IRV for the Dummies. Explained in very clear and simple way

[@hisstory3226]

this was well done

[@PenSteel]

[ ] Pink [2] Yellow [ ] Purple [1] Blue

[@ddndhd]

I feel very lucky to vote in a city that uses IRV (Burlington VT)

[@jamessauls9652]

great!

[@extraman111]

The music is cute, but how about some information? @:40 "you need a majority" -- OF WHAT? Are the ballots that select fewer than all of the candidates still part of the denominator after every one of their selected candidates is no longer in contention? If yes, then it's possible no candidate ever gets to 50%.

[@FeygeleGoy]

Hopefully, this will change what Minnesota had in the last *three* gubernatorial elections: the "winning" governor had substantially less than 50% of the vote. It will also legitimize the winner since they'll have to earn more than the mid-40% from one party to win. It's about politicians earning broad-base support, not party numbers games.

[@modelt5271]

It makes too much sense for the U.S. to adopt it.

[@PradeepkrishnaYadav]

The way

[@refink33]

wonderful.

[@afaultytoaster]

@SilentScreamvideos no, because they preferred yellow or blue over pink. are you dense?

[@Dan1elle]

you haven't understood the video at all ...

[@cactustactics]

@SilentScreamvideos What if purple got 10,000,000 votes and pink got 10,000,001,and a few other million people voted some other way?Is it fair to say "everyone likes pink more than purple" at this point, ignoring the opinions of the other millions of people who had some other first choice but probably have a preference between purple and pink?What if those millions of people all happen to like purple better? Isn't it fairer to find out, instead of saying 'sorry shouldn't have said you like blue'

[@RagDollRat]

in partisan politics this would result in hilariously bad elections like independants who NO ONE likes winning because they would NEVER vote democrat or NEVER vote republican.

[@jimpennock4666]

I found the audio distracting and colored post-its confusing as well. A cute little piano melody but a more clear voice over would have been better. So sorry Curtis and Molly. This won't be the go to place I'd send folks to clarify what can often be a confusing concept. WE MUST make this understandable so we don't have someone, yet again, occupying a chair that too few of us wanted them in. RCV is our next best hope for dealing with the, "I voted against that dude." resulting in someone like The Trumpet getting a chair at the Adults' table. In my opinion, he doesn't rate the kids table.

[@johnjuan9874]

Sorry, if I don't want to vote for someone, my vote should not be counted for that person. This is an example of evil.

[@afaultytoaster]

@SilentScreamvideos you lack imagination. what if every single yellow and blue voter would have preferred pink?