The IRV 'fault' is not a fault, but a feature. When the loser drops out, the people who put them at #1 still get a say in the remaining candidates. That's why m

The IRV 'fault' is not a fault, but a feature. When the loser drops out, the people who put them at #1 still get a say in the remaining candidates. That's why more voters prefer candidate Hexagon in the example - it's actually a truer result of all the electorate, not [all electorate minus Square voters]. Just because your #1 candidate is knocked out doesn't mean you should lose your say in how you're governed. Similarly, the example paints Triangle as getting more popular, but ignores that Hexagon is also getting more popular. The 'fault' also requires that none of the candidates are particularly representative - look at the example, look at where the locus of voters are, and look at where the candidates are. In order for Triangle to not win any more, all three candidates have to be pretty bad representatives; it's less of a disaster if "not the right candidate" won in this situation (even though that's not what's happening).