Not for single-winner elections. STV (IRV) isn't so bad for multi-winner elections, but for single-winner elections it fails monotonicity. (It's difficult to

Not for single-winner elections. STV (IRV) isn't so bad for multi-winner elections, but for single-winner elections it fails monotonicity. (It's difficult to design a multi-winner election system that's truly bad.) You think Florida in 2000 was bad? If there's a significant election skewed by IRV's problems, the population will want to burn the people who chose it at the stake. http://www.rangevoting.org/rangeVirv.html http://www.rangevoting.org/rangeVirv.html http://wiki.electorama.com/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting#Assessing_IRV http://wiki.electorama.com/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting#Assess... http://www1.cs.columbia.edu/~unger/articles/irv.html http://www1.cs.columbia.edu/~unger/articles/irv.html https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/polit/damy/articles/irv.htm https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/polit/damy/articles/irv.htm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_system_criterion#Compliance_of_selected_systems_.28table.29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_system_criterion#Compli... IRV is a hack to incorporate run-off voting into the first-round voting system, and run-off voting is lacking. In a political system as dysfunctional as the U.S., allowing voters to express true voting preferences is more important than having a voting system that will lead to only marginally better outcomes. Once true voting preferences are known, the political parties will have to adjust to accommodate that. As long as the voting system encourages some people to hide their true voting preferences, those preferences cannot push the two dominant political parties to change their platforms.