unfortunately you fall victim to one of the classic blunders...sorry wrong movie anyway the problem with what you're saying is that you view the public as having a single feeling of what is in their interest and that democracy can every adequately represent this public interest. Unfortunately that's impossible, Kenneth Arrow, won a nobel prize for stating essentially that no method of aggregation can come up with a completely fair estimate of the public interest. In large part because of cycling ala one person likes a>b>c another b>c>a and a third c>a>b in this sort of scenario there is no such thing as a condercet winner(one that beats all the others) because B beats C, A beats B and C beats A. in reality no method including instant runoffs is completely fair they just bring about a different winner without improving the overall "fairness" level additional arguments can be made because of strategic voting where individuals purposely misrepresent their vote in order to avoid their worst outcome.
Slashdot Mirror
unfortunately you fall victim to one of the classic blunders...sorry wrong movie anyway the problem with what you're saying is that you view the public as having a single feeling of what is in their interest and that democracy can every adequately represent this public interest. Unfortunately that's impossible, Kenneth Arrow, won a nobel prize for stating essentially that no method of aggregation can come up with a completely fair estimate of the public interest. In large part because of cycling ala one person likes a>b>c another b>c>a and a third c>a>b in this sort of scenario there is no such thing as a condercet winner(one that beats all the others) because B beats C, A beats B and C beats A. in reality no method including instant runoffs is completely fair they just bring about a different winner without improving the overall "fairness" level additional arguments can be made because of strategic voting where individuals purposely misrepresent their vote in order to avoid their worst outcome.