Thanks for the interesting links, but I don't think they support your conclusion that IRV is less practical to count. The Kemeny-Young method can't practically be counted without a computer. IRV can easily be counted by hand or computer.
I think IRV is used as widely as it is not only because of its simplicity, but also because of familiarity; it is a preferential form of the multi-round Exhaustive Ballot system and a special case of Single Transferable Vote (which in other cases is a system of proportional representation).
For your legislative elections, a system of proportional representation would be better than IRV, Kemeny-Young or any other single-winner system.
> For your legislative elections, a system of proportional representation would be better than IRV, Kemeny-Young or any other single-winner system.
that is a much harder battle. Changing the election system is easier than change the representation system.
So I agree that IRV is simpler - but I'm still looking for a tabular format that will allow count-once-but-execute-multiple-reassignment-round mechanism.
Sorry - I'm really interested in these things for the electoral system in India... which is far more complicated than the two party systems in the US.
I think IRV is used as widely as it is not only because of its simplicity, but also because of familiarity; it is a preferential form of the multi-round Exhaustive Ballot system and a special case of Single Transferable Vote (which in other cases is a system of proportional representation).
For your legislative elections, a system of proportional representation would be better than IRV, Kemeny-Young or any other single-winner system.