Why do you say that IRV nevertheless elected the “wrong” candidate?
In a head-to-head race, the votes suggest that the Democrat would have beaten the Progressive by a margin of 46% to 39%. Subject to the same caveat that voter and candidate behavior might have been different, the votes thus suggest that voters preferred the Democrat to both the Progressive and the Republican. Yet the Democrat finished third in the IRV results.
As shown in [the 2009 Burlington mayoral] election, IRV does not "solve the spoiler problem," does not "allow voters to vote their true preference without fear of inadvertently electing a candidate they cannot stand," and it does not elect candidates "actually preferred by a majority."
These and other pathologies are not rare. IRV in this election did not serve as a "bulwark of democracy" – rather the opposite.
We shall show by considering Burlingon's 2009 mayoral election that all the claims by Bouricius and FairVote are false.http://rangevoting.org/Burlington.html
Ward 1: 405 keep, 264 repeal
Ward 2: 428 keep, 185 repeal
Ward 3: 510 keep, 292 repeal
Ward 4: 1203 repeal, 606 keep
Ward 5: 793 keep, 545 repeal
Ward 6: 490 keep, 477 repeal
Ward 7: 1006 repeal, 437 keep
BURLINGTON ELECTION TOTALS
Elections highlighted in red are similar. IRV election years shows clear decline in voter participation.
~1993: 10269, BROWNELL WINS
~1995: 11756, CLAVELLE WINS
~1997: 5518, CLAVELLE WINS, NO MAJOR CANDIDATE
~1999: 9941, CLAVELLE WINS
~2001: 6208, POOR WEATHER 26” SNOW
~2003: 5959, CLAVELLE WINS, NO MAJOR CANDIDATE
~2006: 9865, IRV 37% OF REGISTERED VOTERS
~2009: 9013, IRV 27% OF REGISTERED VOTERS