The only place in the US that uses IRV is SF. I think it will be used for the first time this fall. In SF, the election is non-partisan. It is replacing an election+runoff system. If no candidate got a majority in the first round, then there would be runoff between the top two.
There are often more than two strong candidates. Here are the results from the first election for last year:
GAVIN NEWSOM . . . . . . . . . 87,196 41.92 MATT GONZALEZ . . . . . . . . . 40,714 19.57 ANGELA ALIOTO . . . . . . . . . 33,446 16.08 TOM AMMIANO. . . . . . . . . . 21,452 10.31 SUSAN LEAL . . . . . . . . . . 17,641 8.48 TONY RIBERA. . . . . . . . . . 5,015 2.41
The runoff between Newsom and Gonzalez was quite close.
In Cambridge, MA they use STV for city elections. These are also non-partisan. I don't think there are any other ranked ballot elections in the US.
I imagine you know this already, but IRV/STV is used in Ireland, London, Malta, Australia, and New Zealand. I might be missing a few others.
Best,
Jeff
From: "Toplak Jurij" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [EM] IRV - how many candidates per party?
There are several IRV experts on the list. I am sure you are aware of =
its practical use, too.
I'd like to know, how many candidates are usually offered by the same =
party in IRV? Only one? Two or more?=20
IRV is used in San Francisco and some other places. Since US has =
two-party system, offering only one candidate per party makes the total =
of two candidates. If there are two candidates, there is no difference =
between FPTP and IRV, right?
Does anyone know of any empirical study of practical use of IRV? Any =
comment is welcome.
I should add a question to the post below: Is IRV in San Francisco and =
other places used to replace primaries+general election or is it used =
only for general elections while primaries take place at some other time =
earlier?
