> "The winner is preferred to each other candidate, by the majority of voters" seems pretty straightforward to me. It is, but 1) the public needs to be suffici

> "The winner is preferred to each other candidate, by the majority of voters" seems pretty straightforward to me. It is, but 1) the public needs to be sufficiently convinced that all of the bookkeeping reliably determines which candidate that applies to in the face of possible error or malfeasance, and 2) sometimes there is no such candidate (cycles are possible) and what happens then can be complicated. (And sure, ties are possible in ~any system, but if we treat cycles as ties we've made ties much more likely.)