Paper Continues...

I am currently discussing electoral misfire, IRV, etc. in the paper. It's weird addressing plurality wins now instead of in the nomination process part of the paper since it has become unusual for more than 2 candidates to run in the general election. I am considering talking about IRV earlier because of this.
In this section of the paper, (I am discussing IRV right now) I will have to cover both the predicted
and actual positive points of IRV as well as address some perceived negatives. Possibly I will also need to compare it to other systems of voting.

Positives:
Reduced negative campaigning (reference this from a previous blog post:An estimated $4 billion was spent on the 2014 midterm elections, with $1 million being spent on campaign ads (half of these ads were negative). [x] [x])
Majority win
No cost for runoff election
Increased turnout in U.S. cities that held instant runoff elections

Negatives and counterattacks:
Voting procedure will be too difficult to understand (This study concludes that minorities are more likely to support IRV than the conventional runoff voting in that election and that it was reported as being easy to understand by voters of all races. Also, people in Australia, Ireland, and elsewhere can understand it since there are low residual ballot rates, so why shouldn't people in America?)
Voting machine technology will be too expensive (first of all it's a necessary cost for all the benefit it brings. Secondly, if it becomes part of an act there will be federal funds allocated for the purpose of procuring new machines, such as with the Help America Vote Act).

Also, I registered for AP exams last week.
Reminder to buy talent show tickets and DVD ($15)