In some places in California you get to vote for ranked choices for each local office

[lunatica]

You choose and rank your three choices. Your first choice is in box 1 and the second is in box 2, etc. It's supposed to be instant runoff voting. The first choice is counted only unless none of the choices receives 50%, then the other candidates are counted till one wins.

That seems very strange to me. If you only vote for your first choice doesn't that give your candidate an extra push for more votes? Someone described this as a bullet vote because it shoots your candidate to the top because you don't vote for the others.

Is this correct?

[JackRiddler]

1. Think about it.

A candidate wins only with 50 percent of the vote. If no one has that, then the one who got the least votes is knocked out. Those ballots are reviewed for second choices. Those are divided amongst the higher vote totals. If still no one has 50 percent of the vote, then the one who now has the least is knocked out and those ballots are reviewed for second/third choices. Continue until someone has 50 percent.

If you choose only one candidate, then your ballot becomes irrelevant in the subsequent rounds. You are not helping either, your vote or your favorite candidate.

[lunatica]

2. This ranked voting is in Oakland, Berkeley and San Leandro only

according to the instructions. I guess it's an experiment for now.

[Luminous Animal]

4. We have ranked voting in San Francisco and it is not an experiment.

We voted a few years ago to change to IRV in order to avoid expensive run-off campaigns.

[depakid]

3. That's preferential voting and it's done in every election in Australia

Here at least, a ballot is disqualified is the preferences aren't all numbered (the last preference can remain blank, but the others have to be numbered in order).

Trading policy promises for preferences is often how much needed legislation for smaller constituencies and interest groups gets on Parliament's agenda.

[LiberalFighter]

5. They could just as easily avoid a runoff by having the candidate with the most votes win

instead of requiring 50% +1

[LiberalFighter]

6. I would say this type of election is flawed as

the voter has no idea who survives in the elimination process.

I as a voter would want to know how many votes the other candidates had. Whether my original preferred candidate has a chance after the first round. And whether the top vote getter would be acceptable.

It would be better to just go majority vote instead of 50%.

[Raine1967]

7. Is this instant Run off Voting? I'm not sure.