From the article you discussed on wiki (Burlington 2009 mayoral race)
> In IRV, there is no tactical incentive for a voter withhold or falsify their second choice.
We can get into the weeds about mathematical details like Monotonicity and Condorcet, but the truth of the matter is that nearly all the time (much more often than First-past-the-post) these measures end up being identical anyway.
I don't think anyone would argue that first-past-the-post would have produced a better candidate in this election than RCV did.
The statement "there is no tactical incentive for a voter withhold or falsify their second choice" says nothing about a voter falsifying their first choice, which is exactly where IRV broke down in that election. If Republican voters who preferred the Democrat to the Progressive candidate had falsely specified the Democrat as their first choice, they could have changed the election outcome in favor of a candidate they would have preferred over the winner that IRV elected.
I don't think anyone would argue that first-past-the-post would have produced a better candidate in this election than RCV did.
I don't think so either, but I also think that's a straw man argument. The Condorcet winner would've been the Democrat. IRV elected the Progressive, but according to that same Wiki page FPTP would have likely elected the Republican, whereas the Democrat would have likely won under systems like approval or score.
From the article you discussed on wiki (Burlington 2009 mayoral race)
> In IRV, there is no tactical incentive for a voter withhold or falsify their second choice.
We can get into the weeds about mathematical details like Monotonicity and Condorcet, but the truth of the matter is that nearly all the time (much more often than First-past-the-post) these measures end up being identical anyway.
I don't think anyone would argue that first-past-the-post would have produced a better candidate in this election than RCV did.