Yeah, I agree in some regards. I especially dislike "majority winner" as an ideal. But at least Score Runoff gets the runoff candidates as consensus options fro

Yeah, I agree in some regards. I especially dislike "majority winner" as an ideal. But at least Score Runoff gets the runoff candidates as consensus options from pure score (although that means it loses the value of score for 2-candidate situations. Instant-runoff advocates have a series of arguments against score voting and only one of them is valid: the concern about an unequal balance of strategic voting from one side and not the other. And since Score Runoff addresses that (and even addresses the wrong arguments about the supposed value of majorities), Score Runoff means the only critique any IRV person can validly present is that SRV isn't simple. Of course, IRV isn't any simpler. I find it baffling that all the energy seems to focus on the worst of the voting reforms. Condorcet and Borda and other rank systems are even themselves better than IRV, regarldess of the fundamental problems with all rank systems. Anyway, if some people put in the time and energy to mount a real reform campaign for anything other than IRV, I'd still support it. I really want everyone to get behind cardinal (i.e. rating) systems of some sort. Approval, score, and score runoff all have their merits and are all acceptable and better than rank voting (especially better than IRV) As long as we're talking about a cardinal system, I'm going to join whatever movement gets the most headway toward actually succeeding in getting passed.