Something that I haven't heard much discussion about yet...

[rogerashton]

1. I concur very strongly! but ...

There really is a case for instant runoff voting that goes beyond the populist left.

(In case some don't recall, in instant runoff voting the voter can list second, third, etc. preferences. If your first preference is dropped out because too few support her, then your second choice counts, etc.)

Here's the universal case: our current voting systems force every voter to "game the system," trying to guess which candidate has a real chance to get a plurality or into the delayed runoff and choose the "least evil" candidate from those few. This means that the vote conveys distorted information about voter preferences, which is bad in itself. It also forces the voter (in many cases) either to lie or to throw away her vote. Both options are morally degrading. An instant runoff system allows the voter to vote her convictions and the election results are based on information about the voter's sentiments which is much less distorted by "gaming the system." I think libertarians, social conservatives, and, since the last election, even some tea partiers have felt the frustration we lefties feel. Let's pitch it as a change that is good for everybody except the opportunists who always game the system for profit.