Is IRV better than using traditional separate runoff elections?
Yes, for many reasons. While more democratic than common plurality elections, two-round runoffs have distinct disadvantages. A traditional runoff extends the campaign season and can be met with a collective sigh of “Oh no, here we go again.” IRV increases the likelihood that the ultimate decision will be made at the election with the greatest level of citizen participation. Runoffs tend to have a lower voter turnout, though there are, of course, exceptions. Imagine the turnout for a runoff for a more minor office. The winner of a runoff may get fewer votes than an opponent got in the original election, leading to doubts about the “will of the people,” hobbled legitimacy, and lack of a perceived mandate. Traditional runoffs are also costly, both to the taxpayer who must pay for the duplicate election and to the candidates who must resume campaign fund-raising and prolong the stress on their families and business lives. The cost of ballot tabulation in the case of IRV is a tiny fraction
