> the proposed system is specifically Instant Run-Off Voting (IRV), which does not make a centrist third-party candidate likely to win. I agree with you that i

> the proposed system is specifically Instant Run-Off Voting (IRV), which does not make a centrist third-party candidate likely to win. I agree with you that it's not as nice as something like Borda count, but I think I only agree with you that it wouldn't help a centrist third-party candidates chances if we assume, for the sake of argument, that switching from first-past-the-post to IRV wouldn't change who voters pick as their top candidate. And that seems like a very difficult assumption to support, because the typical public discussion around third party candidates makes it explicit that people habitually choose to vote for someone other than their top choice in first-past-the-post elections. I can speak somewhat from experience here. Some of my local elections use (non-instant) runoff voting, and my decisionmaking process in the first round of those elections is markedly different from the one I use in elections without a runoff. For starters, it doesn't typically involve having to hold my nose while I fill out the ballot.