I have to say, I really like this idea. This might also make the whole competing bills part of the Legislative Procedure Act actually relevant again if there’s multiple people standing 
I’m opposed to this. The voting systems we use are each chosen because they fit the specific positions they elect ‒ with IRV for the more political office of PM focusing on majoritarianism, and AV for the Delegate/Chair relying on consensuality more ‒ and I think those are distinctions worth keeping.
But, I think the “troublesome” part of AV ‒ assuming that’s the confusion over and subsequently spoiling of the ballots ‒ could be taken care of by instead using the Expanding Approvals method. It’s sort of a ranked approval vote, using ranked ballots and rounds like IRV, but counting preferences in an AV-style ‒ until a candidate (or two, in case of the Delegate election) has majority approval, ballots are considered to continually approve the next-preferred candidate in addition to all before them (so a ballot 1. A, 2. B, 3. C would count as having approved only A in the first, A and B in the second, and all three in the third round).
This could eliminate the spoiling of ballots by confused voters and standardize ranked-ballot voting on the forums, all while keeping the consensus-oriented approach to the Delegate election that AV provides. Would this be something that people here could support? I know I sometimes get carried away when talking about electoral systems