FairVote's argument against Score Voting (aka Range Voting) is mathematically flawed. FairVote began as "Citizens for Proportional Representation", and I believe their real interest in implementing Single Transferable Vote in the USA, like e.g. Australia uses in their Senate. Because IRV ("preferential vote") is the single-winner case of STV, FairVote pushes it as a useful "stepping stone". I do not believe they particularly care about the merits of IRV, and in fact they have made numerous blatantly false and misleading statements on voting for many years. Warren D. Smith, a Princeton math Ph.D. who has studied voting theory for over a decade, and sort of served as the "protagonist" of the book _Gaming the Vote_ responds specifically to several of the FairVote statements here: http://ScoreVoting.net/Irvtalk.html Here is a response to the specific (and actually quite absurd) criticism that Score Voting and Approval Voting violate "majority rule", particularly as compared to IRV. http://www.electology.org/majority The "right" metric of voting method performance (and you can basically prove it mathematically, as counter-intuitive as that may seem) is "average voter satisfaction" which can be expressed using ametric called Bayesian regret. Look at this graph of Bayesian regret values and notice how vastly much better Score and Approval Voting perform. IRV is actually almost bad as Plurality/FPtP. http://scorevoting.net/BayRegsFig.html Regards, Clay Shentrup The Center for Election Science San Francisco, CA