I'm glad to see the Center for Election Science getting some funding and attention. They seem to be the loudest voice in favor of approval voting or range voti

I'm glad to see the Center for Election Science getting some funding and attention. They seem to be the loudest voice in favor of approval voting or range voting, but they tend to get drowned out by the IRV bandwagon being promoted mainly by fairvote.org. As far as I know, fairvote.org has good intentions, but IRV (also variously referred to as alternative vote or ranked choice voting) has problems that are kind of hard to explain succinctly but which are likely to cause real problems. Basically, IRV tends to eliminate compromise candidates early and it also fails the monotonicity criterion, which means that there are cases where a candidate could win if some group of voters mark that candidate as their N'th choice, but the candidate loses if those same people mark the candidate as their N-1'th choice. That's a problem that even first-past-the-post doesn't share. In FPTP, you can't cause a candidate to lose by voting for them. I worry that voting reform will be perpetually stalled because IRV sounds good, but then the people in a position of power to enact real legislation do some research and talk to some experts and find out it's not as great as they thought. I don't know if that's what happened in Canada with Trudeau, but it I wouldn't be surprised.