I read the article. It's nonsense, starting from the first sentence. The supermarket example is also nonsense.

I also read the wikipedia article on 2009 Burlington mayoral election where a supposedly unpopular candidate won, which led to repealing IRV, except that the article itself says that the same candidate would have won under the usual two-round vote and the main reasons against IRV were it being "convoluted", "not transparent", "hard to understand" and "turning the election into a gambling game", so in short, Muricans Dum.

Oh and another thing. Something so obvious I didn't even consider mentioning earlier:

We're not electing the president here.

We could vote in the worst template this site has to offer and no harm would be done. Extreme templates can be cool, extreme polititians not so much.

And it's definitely not practical to hold multiple rounds of voting for sodding CW templates.

I don't care about what the Heritage Foundation has to say about anything, so I haven't read the article, but it is true that IRV/Hare sucks. However, knowing them it wouldn't surprise me if they reached the right conclusion for the wrong reasons. IRV/Hare sucks because it completely shits the bed in terms of monotonicity (ranking a candidate higher can decrease that candidate's chance of winning), and the Hare elimination mechanism has a habit of eliminating Condorcet winners.

But I have no idea if Fizzer is using IRV/Hare at all. The CW template vote is essentially equivalent to a multi-member district election, and so it's very possible he's using STV (which is often recommended for such elections). I haven't looked into such elections nearly as much as single-winner elections, so I don't have a preferred method for that.

This is going to sound blasé but my experience is that the majority of Americans have difficulties when faced with decision making which goes beyond red vs blue.

They aren’t in the habit of considering nuanced options, being introspective about their own beliefs, or formulating an original opinion. Anything beyond FPTP is a struggle.

Thank you Rento and Uzay for your best efforts to educate but I think you’re wasting your time here.

Seems we're crossing over into politics a bit here.

My main 2 bits are that I think we should change the CW template a bit more often and not make a big deal of it. Maybe always match the seasonal ladder if it's not one already included. That way everyone can get practice.

But re: voting, I think the best number to vote on is around 7. That list is just too huge to want to try every map.

If we want to experiment with voting styles, I'd prefer like a preliminary vote with one person representing each of the top 20-30 clans, maybe informally in a private group. That can filter it down to 7 for a general vote.