I did exaggerate (and said I did), but my point was that IRV makes it very obvious when a candidate loses badly on 1st order preferences but wins based on subse

I did exaggerate (and said I did), but my point was that IRV makes it very obvious when a candidate loses badly on 1st order preferences but wins based on subsequent choices. That can be argued as an IRV benefit over other systems (the winner knows s/he's on thin ice! The winner does have 50%+1 overall!), but the other way to see it is that the winner would be hobbled and would have difficulty governing effectively, and a voting system that emphasizes the ranking a bit less might have had the same result but with the winner having more legitimacy following the election.