See "Voting System Can Be Fickle" for an in-depth explanation of instant-runoff voting.

The uncommon voting system employed by Harvard’s Undergraduate Council leaves a great deal of room for voters and candidates to strategize and maneuver, an analysis of the voting technology shows.

Under the UC’s system, known as instant-runoff voting, students rank their preferred candidates instead of voting for a single one. If no ticket wins a majority of the first-place votes, the candidates with the least votes are eliminated and their votes redistributed until a victor is ultimately chosen.

Last year’s UC presidential election required four rounds of eliminating candidates and redistributing votes—the maximum possible with the number of tickets there were—before Ryan A. Petersen ’08 and Matthew L. Sundquist ’09 were elected.

But the results could have been swayed by the voters who gave their first-place votes to Ali A. Zaidi ’08 and Edward Y. Lee ’08, who made a third-place showing.

Had 141 of Zaidi-Lee supporters placed Tom D. Hadfield ’08 and S. Adam Goldenberg ’08 ahead of Petersen-Sundquist, instead of the other way around, Hadfield and Goldenberg would have emerged as the victors.

Although this year’s elections features only three tickets, half as many as last year, voters can use their knowledge of the voting system to make the most of their votes.

By ranking as many tickets as possible when they vote, voters can minimize the chance that their ballots become “exhausted”—or rendered inconsequential—during the runoff process.

Voters should also not be afraid that listing a second choice will affect their first-choice ticket’s chances of winning: their second-place vote will only influence the vote count if their first-choice ticket has already been eliminated.

Finally, students can vote for an outside or “dark-horse” candidate without the fear that such votes will be wasted.

If a voter’s first-choice candidate is eliminated, that vote is transferred to the second choice ranked on the ballot, ensuring that the vote will still influence the election.

The candidates in the race can also take into account the intricacies of the voting system in developing campaign strategy.

Of course candidates should seek to garner as many first-choice votes as possible, but they should also not ignore voters who are clearly supporting other tickets. Instead, campaigns should try to grab students’ second-place votes, which can be influential if the election requires a runoff.

Dark-horse tickets should also emphasize to voters that first-place votes for them will not be wasted. These campaigns can then hope to garner enough first-place votes to stave off elimination, while relying on second-place votes to propel them to victory.

—Staff writer Roger R. Lee can be reached at rlee@fas.harvard.edu.

INSTANT RUNOFF

Pros
»    Votes for outside or “dark-horse” candidates are not wasted, thereby potentially increasing voter turnout
»    Voters are not pressured to vote for mainstream or consensus candidates for fear of wasting their votes (spoiler effect)
»    The winning candidate always emerges with a majority, thereby increasing the candidate’s legitimacy
»    Only one election is needed, because runoffs can be simulated instantly

Cons
»    Often complicated to understand and can confuse voters
»    A true majority-supported candidate might be prematurely eliminated due to lack of first-place votes
»    A candidate can win without the most first-place votes.
»    Weakens the link between voters and their representatives because it is unclear which candidates they ultimately voted for
»    Expensive and time-consuming to administer

LAST YEAR'S ELECTION BY THE NUMBERS

»    3,519 ballots were cast, representing 55% of the student body
»    47% of ballots were cast within the first 24 hours of voting .
»    Voters ranked an average of 3.54 tickets on their ballot, out of 6 eligible tickets.
»    The winning candidate (Petersen-Sundquist) had just 37% (1,314/3,519) of first-place votes, but achieved 54% (1710/3139) of the final redistributed votes under the instant-runoff system
»    3 voters ranked “no candidate” as their first choice and a real candidate as their second choice.
»    Petersen-Sundquist’s campaign Facebook group achieved 513 Harvard undergraduate members, the most out of any ticket.
»    35 student groups officially endorsed a president/vice-president ticket.
»    89% of ballots were ultimately influential in the election, due to the instant-runoff system
»    Campaigns can spend up to $400 of UC-reimbursed money
»    The election took 4 rounds of elimination and redistribution to declare a winner, the highest number possible
»    There were 6 candidates, twice as many as this year