[nyc640]

You’re totally right, but I don’t think I’ve ever heard RCV being called more consensus-oriented. Just that it makes it less harmful for third party candidates to participate in elections since they won’t play spoiler in the same way (Ralph Nader). I think the success of RCV just has to do with its relative simplicity compared to other alternative voting methods.

Even leading up to this election, I saw some mainstream coverage of the fact that the election would come down to who finished 3rd. i.e. if Palin got eliminated in the first round, most of her votes would’ve gone to Begich and he probably would’ve won. Doesn’t speak well for RCV that it can come down to such a slim margin, but I still think RCV > FPTP for the third party reason above.

[gamegoblin]

I agree that RCV is better than FPTP, but only marginally. It's not clear to me if the marginally better system is worth the complexity (in the eyes of some voters, at least).

As you allude to, RCV is fine when the minor parties essentially have no chance at winning. They get knocked out in the early rounds and then don't matter. In cases where two candidates have similar vote shares, the result is fairly chaotic.