IRV will encourage more positive campaigning because candidates are at a disadvantage when they turn off supporters of their opponents.
With our current voting system, we have seen many candidates across the country resort to vicious attacks, mud-slinging, and scare tactics designed to whip up their base. Though frequently successful, this strategy tends to take the focus off real issues, depress overall voter turnout, and make us all more cynical about the political process generally.
Though no panacea in this regard, IRV does provide any extra disincentive to very negative campaigning. Under IRV, if a candidate cannot win the first-choice support of particular voter, the candidate still has an interest in being that voter’s second or third choice in order to ultimately win the runoff. As a result, candidates are less likely to engage in mud-slinging in fear of of turning off their opponents’ supporters and losing that crucial second and third choice support.
The best example of this is the recent IRV elections in San Francisco. According to the New York Times, candidates in the race for seats on the County Board of Supervisors held joint fund raisers and openly praised their opponents. This atmosphere of respect and co-operation leads to debate on real issues facing voters instead of personal attacks and partisan rhetoric.
