Preferential Vote & KISS: Saunders, Not Poli "Scientists"

In yesterday's paper edition of Globe, there were two explanations of preferential vote, one by decent journalist and one by poli "sci" freaks. Guess which was clear & simple (Saunders, see below) and which really really wasn't: terrible bit of mush from some poli "sci" group, clearly written in infamous poli "sci" prose. Since we've had, what?, four public consultations?, on more complicated proportional systems and there's no support (given Ont once, BC twice, PEI once), in large part because they were badly designed and hard to explain, Preferential is the only hope for introducing even an element of proportional, and maybe as a first step to eventual greater reform. But I'm starting to suspect that reform advocates would secretly prefer status quo as it allows them to lecture endlessly from height of incomprehensible "haut en bas" self-righteousness. How else to explain their affection for complicating & obfuscating the most simple concepts? The great advantages of preferential system is it hasn't been rejected, one, we already use it, two, as Saunders notes, it's easy as it can be done without any changes to electoral map or system (or ballot paper even), etc., three, AND IT'S SIMPLE!!! Please, electoral reform freaks, if you are at all serious, can we stick to Saunder's explanation and not your baroque over-complications? Or do you desperately want another group of soi-disant ordinary Canadians locked into a room with poli "sci" prof fantasists until they succumb to Stockholm syndrome and propose yet another incomprehensible 17-faceted electoral system that only poli "sci" nerds can love? Stick with this, SVP: "The system, known as the alternative vote in Britain or the preferential ballot in Canada, creates an “instant runoff” where, if no candidate gets 50 per cent of the first-choice votes, the second choices are then added to the tallies, and so on until a candidate achieves a majority."