How is Top 3 Better Than Ranked Choice with Instant Runoff?

Top 4 (or 5) with Instant Runoff also tries to solve the problem of limited choices for voters, but it can introduce a different problem: the counting process depends on elimination rounds. A candidate who would beat every other candidate head-to-head can still lose under instant runoff if that candidate is eliminated before the final round. In other words, instant runoff does not always elect the candidate with the strongest head-to-head support across the electorate and eliminating that candidate means the system can reward sequencing mechanics over majority preference. 

Head-to-head voting in the general election works just like a round-robin tournament. Every candidate competes against every other candidate. Every matchup counts and is worth the same, ensuring all candidates play on a level field. The winner is not simply the candidate with the most first-choice votes, nor the candidate who survives an elimination sequence, but the candidate with the strongest head-to-head case against the field, ensuring that the winner best and most fairly reflects the preferences of voters.

With three finalists, there are only three matchups: A v. B, A v. C, and B v. C. Every voter can express a preference in each matchup. If one candidate defeats both other candidates head-to-head, that candidate wins. This is what’s called the Condorcet principle, and it is the central mathematical advantage of the system. It asks a clear democratic question: which candidate would voters choose if the race came down to each possible two-candidate contest?

The three-candidate structure also allows for important protections that are not generally available in the same way with four candidates in an instant runoff system. A voter’s preference between any two candidates is counted directly and equally. The system does not depend on whether a candidate survives an elimination round before that preference matters.