IRV Illustrated

February 23, 2010

Clicke this link to see the YouTube video:

This video illustrates how IRV can cause a candidate to lose by getting MORE support, and how a voter in an IRV election can NOT know, going in, whether his vote for a candidate will help or hurt that candidate’s chances of winning.


Question For St. Paul

September 18, 2009

From our website at

Shouldn’t a vote on whether to implement Instant Runoff Voting be done using an IRV format? 

Example: Should the city of St. Paul implement IRV?

Rank the following choices in order of preference:

___ Yes

___ No

___ Maybe

___ I’d rather have something else

Would the pro-IRV people risk using IRV to decide on it? Or, would they rather stack the deck with choices like ‘strongly yes’, ‘mildly yes’, ‘yes,’ ‘probably,’ – thus guaranteeing the result they want? 

Think about it…


July 1, 2009

People are asking me for my take on the fiasco that put Franken in the senate.  Here’s my answer:


This is not an exceptional example, it’s typical.  ’nuff said…

For more details, see the WSJ editorial: The Absentee Senator: Franken wins by changing the rules

Primary v. General

June 25, 2009

counting21One of the suspect claims FairVote uses to promote their IRV scheme is the idea that IRV eliminates the need for a primary, and thus it will make elections cheaper and easier to administer.

We have always contradicted this claim on the basis that primaries are a vital part of our election process and that IRV wouldn’t save a dime, which was verified by Ramsey County elections manager Joe Mansky.

But there is one more inconvenient fact that belies FairVotes claim:  IRV is being proposed as a method to use in primaries!

Google Alert: “Filing for municipal offices begins July 6 – Hendersonville,NC,USA

Hendersonville will use Instant Runoff Voting if a primary is necessary.”

Our own state senator John Marty is proposing a bill to use IRV statewide for both the primaries and the general elections.

The contradictions keep on coming.

Court Rules IRV Constitutional? Not Quite

June 11, 2009

gavelThe AP and other elitist media organs are reporting that the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that IRV or what they are now calling “ranked choice voting” is constitutional.  This is not accurate.

The AP article listed on said: ” But the Supreme Court said the IRV method adopted by Minneapolis does not violate the U.S. or Minnesota constitutions, so Minneapolis is free to try it. The decision affirmed a lower-court decision that also backed the system.”

Minneapolis will be allowed to implement IRV, but the above statement is FALSE.  The Court did NOT rule IRV constitutional.  Neither did the District Court. 

The District Court agreed with the Minnesota Voters Alliance claims that IRV is non-monotonic, i.e. that a voter can harm his favorite candidate by raising that candidate in rank, but merely ruled that since the same law applied to everyone it was “an acceptable risk.”

The Minnesota Supreme Court side-stepped the constitutional issue by ruling that because the lawsuit was making claims about what could happen or might happen in the future, and not about things that have happened, that the plaintiffs didn’t prove their case. 

In other words, they effectively dismissed the case because there was no actual election from which to derive facts and show that an actual disenfranchisement occured.  The ruling was based on a flimsy technicality.

The Supreme Court made the same mistake the District Court made in ignoring the constitutional arguments and jumping on the “let’s-see-what-happens” bandwagon – clearly a dereliction of their judicial duty. 

The Court said regarding the claims that IRV will save money and make elections more fair, etc.: “Whether and to what degree implementation of IRV will achieve those benefits remains to be seen.  But it is plausible that IRV may advance one or more of these interests.”

So, the Court ruled against the plainiff because the complaint was merely about what could or might happen, yet ruled for IRV because of benefits it may provide.  This is judicial self-contradiction!

But the good news is that IRV is still open to constitutional challenge once an actual IRV election takes place in Minnesota. 

The Minnesota Voters Alliance plans to be there when the chaos caused by IRV is in full view to everyone so that even a supreme court justice can’t ignore it.

– Matt Marchetti

*This is not necessarily the official position of the MN Voters Alliance

You can see attorney Erick Kaardal’s response here:

IRV Screws Up Colorado Election

June 5, 2009

The following is an article by Marilyn Marks, former CEO and Aspen Colorado mayoral candidate.

Her experience is EXACTLY why IRV is a bad idea, and why the Star Tribune had no business deleting the “nonmonotonicity” sentences from the recent op-ed by Andy Cilek.

Here are the sentences they cut: 

This “nonmonotonicity paradox” sounds perverse but it was an undisputed fact in the recent decision by the lower court. Even FairVote, the group promoting IRV, had to finally admit that IRV has this detrimental characteristic.

This was probably the most important part of the article, since the District Court case marked the first time is this several-year long debate that the pro-IRV crowd had to finally admit that IRV is nonmonotonic, which is what causes it to disenfranchise voters.

Marilyn Marks’ article demostrates this point extremely well:

mmarksAspen, Colorado just had its first experiment with an IRV election. There was plenty of warning beforehand that it wasn’t a good idea to be playing with matches without some adult supervision and serious thought.  However, in the rush to adopt IRV methods just weeks before the May election, the City got careless.

We now have singed hair and blistered fingers as the details of the IRV black box are beginning to belatedly spill out.  We managed to get through the election, with no big surprises in two races, but created a perverse puzzlement in one Council race.

While there is much more to be analyzed, so far 1) three weeks post election, the City restated the official mayor’s race totals after the election was certified, as more votes were found for the winner.  The missing votes had been delivered to the loser (that’s me), by using Cambridge, Massachusetts rules rather than using Aspen’s IRV rules, and 2) that “it will never happen in real life” non-monotonicity bugaboo produced a poster child for why IRV can greatly disenfranchise voters and candidates.

Aspen voters have not yet been informed of the second problem through the press or letters to the editor, but will be aware soon, when the worksheet proving the bizarre answer is ready for the public record. In the meantime, I’m sharing with some friends wise to the wily nature of IRV, the result that occurred here.

Michael Behrendt, Council candidate, got defeated by 75 of his own supporters, doing their best to support him by ranking him #1 on their ballot. Turns out that he lost to candidate Torre by just 43 of 2103 votes cast in IRV tabulation terms.  However, two independent analysts have calculated that if Behrendt had only had the foresight to ask 75 of his loyal supporters to rank him #2 and change their lower rank for candidate Jack Johnson to #1, AHEAD of Behrendt, Behrendt would have won. 

Little did those voters know that they were costing their friend Michael the election by voting FOR him as the number #1 candidate. Whether you were a Michael, Jack or Torre supporter it has to be a bit disconcerting to know that the order in which you voted for your favorite might have been hurting him instead of helping him get elected. Aspen’s flavor of IRV contains mysterious anomalies for us nonmathematicians, which, as demonstrated, can happen in real life, in our local elections. 

This “Michael Behrendt effect,” I’ll call it, is one of the side effects of “non-monotonicity”. Apparently, the larger the field of candidates, the greater the probability of puzzling outcomes from seemingly minor choices in ranking the candidates. Voters can’t simply depend on the normal voting logic we’ve known since kindergarten. 

Did the Council and IRV Task Force know of such possibilities when adopting IRV? The risks were well documented, but in their rush to adopt a IRV system, non-monotonicity passed off as “rare”, or acceptable as “no system is perfect.” The fact that 2 incumbents (also candidates in the May election) appointed themselves to the IRV Task Force and then voted as Council members on the method their taskforce had recommended , might have had a bit to do with why such anomalies were not thoroughly discussed, although the public raised the issues repeatedly. The lack of independence was rather astounding! 

Were the voters properly informed as to the risk and the complexity? Ask Michael’s supporters, who voted for him first instead of second, thinking that they were definitely helping him get elected. In fact, City Hall assured us in the public hearings to adopt the IRV procedures that it could not happen, despite warnings from mathematicians.

While it is a shame that Michael was defeated in such a perverse way, his situation will bring the hot spotlight to IRV in Aspen. Michael is a well known long time local citizen, a Council member in the 1970’s, and a small lodge owner. He is loved by the entire community and quite active in civic affairs. The fact that the puzzling system defied logic and defeated such well-respected candidate will get additional attention. No doubt he will become the poster child for Monotone Violation in IRV! 

I will be posting a review of alternative election results, including the “Michael Behrendt effect,” showing some what-if scenarios on . I have also posted Kathy Dopp’s Instant Runoff Voting Flaws paper to offer evidence to the skeptics.

For some less technical background arguments in Aspen against IRV see:

 (who knew?? That The Red Ant would be prophetic about that black box.) And,

Marilyn Marks

Aspen, CO

IRV decision goes to the MN Supreme Court

March 21, 2009


PRESS RELEASE, 3/17/09:  The Minnesota Supreme Court issued an order on March 17, 2009, for the accelerated briefing and review of the Minnesota Voters Alliance appeal from the District Court’s decision finding the City of Minneapolis’ Instant Runoff Voting system of elections constitutional. 

The Minnesota Voters Alliance sought accelerated review, as did the City, bypassing the Court of Appeals process because of the lower court’s failure to follow established Supreme Court precedent — law that only the Supreme Court can affirm or reverse.  

The Minnesota Voters Alliance is confident the Supreme Court will find IRV unconstitutional and reverse the lower court’s declaration that in an IRV system:

  • it is acceptable that a voter who votes for his first choice could harm that candidate’s chance of winning;
  • it is acceptable that some voters will have more of their votes counted than others;
  • it is acceptable that in the election tabulation a vote can be fractioned, thus allowing the court to conclude, for the first time ever in state law, that there is no guarantee or protection that a voter’s vote is to be counted as a numeric “one” whole vote;
  • and, that these characteristics do not violate the provisions of United States and Minnesota Constitutions protecting the right to vote, equal protection under the law, or the principle of one-person, one-vote.

The State Supreme Court will likely announce the date of the hearing shortly after the last brief is filed on April 17, 2009.


We find it incredible that any court could find a voting system which disenfranchises the voters in these ways to be constitutionally acceptable. 

Despite the boisterous crowing and dubious arguments of FairVote and the deep-pocketed activist groups they are affiliated with, we believe the state supreme court will reverse the district court’s erroneous ruling.  We are, however, prepared to take this all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, if necessary. 

It’s an admitted fact, by virtue of the judges ruling, that IRV diminishes the character and value of a voter’s vote (as per the bullet points listed above).  So, the only remaining question is whether these violations of our franchise rights are constitutionally acceptable or not.

Judge McGunnigle thinks they are.  We know they are not, and we believe the Supreme Court should have no trouble concluding that we are absolutely right, and that therefore IRV is not allowable as a voting system for Minnesota elections.  We also believe this will set a precedent that will correctly make IRV or any other similar scheme illegal throughout the United States.