I would suggest that the most profitable thing to do now is to accept that the people of St. Paul want a voting system that allows them to express their full and honest preferences, and, rather than attacking this decision in court, work with the city and voting reform organizations to push for a shift to a different counting system that is not sequence-dependent. For example, if we adopted Condorcet voting in single seat contests, then the ballots would be the same as with IRV (thus preserving the intent of yesterday's vote), but all ballots could be counted at the precinct level and reported as a table of head-to-head matchups that could be simply added across all precincts to determine the final outcome.
The people of St. Paul do not understand the fundamentally unfair, egregious way that their preferences will be counted.
Yes, Condorcet would be a much better way of counting those preferences, I agree with you -- with some rule to resolve circular results that may rarely occur.
It would be a little trickier to do this for multi-seat ridings because there has to be some sort of reallocation of ballots to ensure proportionality - ie, that roughly equal numbers of voters contribute to electing each elected official - but it's possible if each precinct reports the number of each possible ballot combination (ie, the raw ballot data) rather than any consolidated results. The counts of each ballot combination can then be aggregated across all precincts in a highly public manner and anyone can run their own implementation of a counting algorithm to ensure that the results are as stated by the election officials.
Using the total counts of all possible combinations can mean having to separately total thousands of possible combination totals in each precinct. Virtually no one would understand that. In fact the counts going on in Minneapolis now are going to be done that way and what a mess that will be.
I disagree with you that a rank choice ballot of individual candidates is a good approach to proportional representation. There are better systems.
St. Paul may never implement IRV due to the campaign violations and the closeness of the vote. We'll see.
It'll be interesting to see who wins the current IRV contests still being counted in Minneapolis and if the majority favorite was eliminated, if the results exhibited nonmonotonicity, etc.
BTW, I disagree with your characterization. You were the first to begin mischaracterizing my position, but let's let bygones be...