If talking about local non-partisan elections, I don't see much difference. Really, the math of IRV is so complex I don't see how you can make many claims about it either way vs. a system as similar as two-round runoff. One drawback of IRV is the possibility of a paradoxical outcome following a recount, or after including absentee ballots. This is not possible with two-round runoff because the runoff election generally occurs well after any disputes from the first election are settled.
With partisan elections, the primary functions as a fairly effective clone-elimination step, probably more effective than a plain runoff. Bart Ingles Steve Barney wrote: > > Do we have a consensus that the instant runoff vote (IRV) is MATHEMATICALLY > better than the common two step plurality vote (primary) with a follow-up > runoff between the 2 top plurality vote getters? It seems to me that it cannot > be worse, given that manipulation is bad. As far as I can see, the only > mathematically provable difference between them is that IRV is less > manipulatable. They share the same faults, including non-monotonicity. With 3 > candidates, I believe they are mathematically identical. > > ===== > "Democracy"?: > http://www1.umn.edu/irp/images/postcardAd2.jpg > AR-NewsWI, a news service for Wisconsin animal advocates: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AR-NewsWI/
