I restored the simple clear version of the argument without the miss leading phrases like pass over and the miss leading statement that implies some ballots are simply disregarded rather than some rankings on some ballots where the voter s first choice is still in the running are not used etc The phrasing proposed by Abd creates a false impression to most Wikipedia readers about the nature of this CON argument Nobody is arguing that a candidate with a majority of first preferences is passed over in favor of a weaker candidate nor that some valid ballots are simply ignored yet that is the impression that Abd s choice of words leaves with most readers His summary of the issue does not capture the thrust of the main claim that exhausted ballots can lead to sub 50 winners nor even the much rarer claim that candidates with much less core support but broader secondary support may get eliminated