First off, let me say that I'd much rather have IRV than the current first-past-the-post voting system. Overall though, I don't think it is a good system.
Lately, I've been hearing a lot of Democrats (voters and politicians) talk about Bernie Sander's electability in the general election as an issue. Voters have to worry about this when they vote in the primary. Primaries are supposed to ensure that party candidates can compete without splitting the vote in the general, but this doesn't eliminate strategic voting because voters have to make a strategic guess about electability in the general (also, there is still vote splitting in the primary itself).
To IRV supporters, do you see this as a problem that needs to be fixed? If so, how are rounds in IRV not similar to the primaries? If voters under IRV don't vote strategically, more electable candidate can get squeezed out by the base and eliminated in the early rounds. Under IRV, there is still a penalty to showing full support to your favorite candidate. Are you OK with this?
Lately, I've been hearing a lot of Democrats (voters and politicians) talk about Bernie Sander's electability in the general election as an issue. Voters have to worry about this when they vote in the primary. Primaries are supposed to ensure that party candidates can compete without splitting the vote in the general, but this doesn't eliminate strategic voting because voters have to make a strategic guess about electability in the general (also, there is still vote splitting in the primary itself).
To IRV supporters, do you see this as a problem that needs to be fixed? If so, how are rounds in IRV not similar to the primaries? If voters under IRV don't vote strategically, more electable candidate can get squeezed out by the base and eliminated in the early rounds. Under IRV, there is still a penalty to showing full support to your favorite candidate. Are you OK with this?