While I understand the attraction of adding more complexity to the system to achieve a "better" solution, I am very leery of trying to change the fundamental nature of the voting system. It's taken fifty years to get people vaguely used to instant-runoff voting.
I'm not worried about hoax write-in votes. In WSFS rules, if you don't have a winner after Round 1, you eliminate all of the ineligible candidates and redistribute their votes; therefore, they can't actually deadlock the election.
(Westercon's rules are different which is why the Westercon 66 site selection was thrown to the Business Meeting; however, the votes for Granzella's were in fact as much protest votes against an extremely weak "real" bid, similar to voting None of the Above, but actually giving the weak bid an last chance by convincing the Business Meeting that they weren't as weak as they looked.)
no subject
I'm not worried about hoax write-in votes. In WSFS rules, if you don't have a winner after Round 1, you eliminate all of the ineligible candidates and redistribute their votes; therefore, they can't actually deadlock the election.
(Westercon's rules are different which is why the Westercon 66 site selection was thrown to the Business Meeting; however, the votes for Granzella's were in fact as much protest votes against an extremely weak "real" bid, similar to voting None of the Above, but actually giving the weak bid an last chance by convincing the Business Meeting that they weren't as weak as they looked.)