Thursday, December 10, 2009

Instant Runoff Elections

So I was wondering why in Atlanta, and many other regions of the US we have runoff elections if there is no majority winner in the primary election rather than simply doing an instant runoff.

Instead of voting for your most preferred candidate in the primary election, you would rank order the candidates. In this case, if there is not a majority winner in the primary election, you simply eliminate the candidate with the least votes and the votes are recounted. This process is repeated until a majority winner is found.

This process of voting only once instead of multiple runoffs saves the taxpayers significant expense of holding such elections. So I wondered what's the downside? Well there is plenty of debate. On the one hand, proponents of the instant runoff say that it not only is more efficient, but voters evaluate the primary candidates more thoroughly and increases voter turnout. Opponents on the other hand, say that although the primary candidates may be more thoroughly evaluated, the winner does not get as much scrutiny as they would if they had a separate runoff election.


The following site talks about the benefits of the instant runoff in Australia:



Wednesday, December 9, 2009

Auctions: GREAT Expirements on Revenue Equivalence

I'm starting to see the theory of revenue equivalence the same way I see the theory of efficient markets ... They both involve fundamental assumptions that make analysis and forecasting simpler, but they simple don't hold true in most cases.

This started in my analysis of all-pay auctions in the context of crowdsourcing websites (shameless plug: check out our presentation and final paper, it WILL change the way you think about the future of the labor market). The following link continues to break down the theory of revenue equivalence among auction types/formats.


The structure of the auction is immensely important to the bids tendered and to the revenues reaped by the auctioneer.