Some pundit from a website called Blue Oregon has published an article http://www.blueoregon.com/2008/12/what-politicos.html claiming the recent Heisman Trophy vote is a good example of why IRV would be an improvement. The following is the response I entered in the comments portion of the site:
This is just more smoke and mirrors from the pushers of this unconstitutional vote ranking scheme. They must have alot of money – or friends in the media, to be able to keep spewing out this bilge.
The Heisman Trophy isn’t a vote, it’s a measurement of qualification for the award. To try to make an anology between the Heisman and an election is sheer idiocy. The award goes to the best player, not the most preferred or popular.
IRV people constantly claim that it would assure that election winners would be “preferred by a majority of voters.” Yet in practically every case, unless a candidate wins a majority of FIRST CHOICES, the end result is still a second choice candidate.
The pro IRV arguments are false and disingenuous. They claim it will help 3rd Parties, yet they also claim it will eliminate the 3rd Party spoiler effect. Huh? How can it help “3rd Parties” if it is designed to eliminate their influence?
IRV wouldn’t even be a good choice for picking America’s next top model, because even something as frivolous as that has certain qualifications that must be met. IRV solves nothing. It just adds another layer of confusion to a process that is usually pretty straightforward: whoever gets the most votes wins.
– Matt Marchetti