DO a control f and type in “incumbent” at this webpage, there are several different articles about this phenomenon in San Francisco elections since the advent of IRV
http://www.instantrunoffvoting.us/sanfrancisco.html

Also, take a look at how Australia, using IRV – has a two party rule, and Ireland has nearly a one party rule.

Exactly! If two-thirds of the people favor a totalitarian state, then it’s very doubtful that they will allow the remaining third to hold them at bay for very long.

It will only take ONE election to elect a Stalin or Hitler type via IRV to be Prez for the END of freedom in the U.S.A.

Thus — IRV is for New Age math MORONS who just love electing Stalin or Hitler types with their IRV manufactured majority mandates for a *change* [to death and destruction].

In case any of such MORONS have not noticed, every New Age rotted incumbent considers him/her self chosen by Heaven and has the support of 100 percent of the voters in *his/her* election area turfzone [political concentration camp area] — with a *mandate* to be a total leftwing or rightwing statist lunatic.

The Hitler/Stalin/Washington example and those like it always assume that the “moderate” candidate will naturally be the second choice of anyone whose first choice is one of the more “extreme” candidates. Note that in the above example, not a single voter ranks Washington as her or his least favorite candidate.

This common assumption — that voter preferences can always be plotted on a linear axis in accordance with static, abstract notions of left and right — has the disadvantage of being false. Polls and documented voting behavior repeatedly confirm this.

Once you remove the assumption of linear voter preferences, the practical differences between IRV and other systems such as Condorcet become much smaller; they will generally produce the same results.

And if 34 percent are voting for Hitler and 33 percent for Stalin, you’ve got problems that the voting system is not going to solve.

Times are ROUGH and TOUGH — like 1860 or 1932. The *middle* is very divided.

34 H W S
33 S W H
16 W H S
16 W S H

99

Place Votes Table

1 2 3

H 34 16 49 99
S 33 16 50 99
W 32 67 0 99

99 99 99

With IRV, W loses. H beats S 50-49.

Head to head (Condorcet method) —
W beats H 65-34
W beats S 66-33

W WINS.

IF the first 2 place votes are *YES* votes (as in Approval Voting), then –

H 50
S 49
W 99

W WINS

IF the Bucklin Method is used (add place votes to get a majority), then adding the place 1 and place 2 votes —

H 50
S 49
W 99

W WINS

H Hitler, S Stalin, W George Washington (American General in the 1775-1783 American Revolution and the first U.S. President, 1789-1797)

IRV is super-dangerous since it ignores most of the data in a place votes table — regardless of the New Age mindless math MORONS hyping IRV in various places — especially for executive / judicial offices.

IRV WILL nominate / elect HITLER / STALIN TYPE extremists —- who will claim a mighty IRV majority *mandate* for their EVIL stuff — while defeating compromise candidates — especially for offices like President, Governor, Mayor, etc.
———
ALL (repeat ALL) voting methods have problems with 3 or more choices. See

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_system

Example – divided majority

26 AB
25 BA
49 Z
100

Can the 49 Z voters choose the lesser of the two A or B evils (according to them) ???

Only the city of Davis is in this category. The cities of Oakland, Berkeley and San Leandro (all in Alameda County) do have charters. Implementation in Berkeley has been delayed in part by exactly the sorts of problems that AB 1294 would have helped to solve by putting counting and reporting procedures in state law. Implementation in Oakland may also be delayed, even though the county’s equipment vendor was more or less on schedule until the recent decertification of touch screen voting machines put everything else on the back burner.

That said, the veto message lacks both reasoning and any respect for evidence. For example, it describes San Francisco’s adoption of IRV as being on a “trial basis”. Huh? I don’t see anything about a “trial” in the San Francisco charter (or in any other the other charters for that matter).