In this thread, the merits of instant-runoff voting are being debated. I’ve got no dog in that fight as far as the merits of IRV are concerned.
However, there seems to be a public-perception bias against IRV and other unfamiliar systems as ‘gimmicky’. So how do we get rid of the gimmick? Seems the easiest way to do this - and a way that’s already familiar, in many states - is to drop the ‘instant’ part, and keep the ‘runoff’ part.
That is, why don’t we move to a system where >50% is required for a win, and we have a runoff between the top two candidates where that requirement isn’t met?
The merits are obvious: at the end of the election, there’s been a vote where the winner got >50% of the vote; it gives independent and third-party candidates a chance to demonstrate their support without affecting the ultimate outcome (unless they place first or second in the initial vote, in which case they’ve won the right to be part of the ultimate outcome); the two major candidates can run against each other, and not have to worry about votes lost to fringe candidates; in general, it makes for a ‘fair game’.
The sole argument against it is that having a possible second round in an election costs more money. But it’s not that much. And if Louisiana can afford to do it, so can most other states.