I restored the simple clear version of the argument without the missleading phrases like passover and the missleading statement that implies some ballots are simply disregarded rather than some rankings on some ballots where the voters 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 passedover in favor of a weaker candidate nor that some valid ballots are simply ignoredyet that is the impression that Abds 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 winners nor even the much rarer claim that candidates with much less core support but broader secondary support may get eliminated