I advocate Smith-IRV because it is simple and meets Condorcet Winner/Loser and Smith, as an improved IRV it sidesteps FairVote's attempts to redefine RCV as the Hare Method. Against more complex Condorcet Methods it can be held as Later No Harm/Help Sufficient when no Condorcet Winner is present (by which I mean the possible violations can be argued to be small enough to ignore). The simplicity and demonstrably lower LNH/H in my view outweigh any advantages the more complex Condorcet methods have. The BTR-IRV in this discussion is an interesting alternative. It requires a maximum of N-1 pairings, making it more handcountable. like the acronym BTR-IRV, because it suggests Better IRV. In the absence of a Condorcet Winner it would have a greater Later Harm/Help effect than Smith-IRV, because each pairing is an opportunity for a Later Harm effect, where after the Smith Set is found Smith-IRV is LNH/H safe. Both methods meet Condorcet's criteria, BTR-IRV is a little simpler and more hand count friendly, Smith IRV meets the additional Smith Criteria and has less LNH/H potential. This also presents more of a spectrum. If the biggest concern is LNH/H, then choose Hare, since Hare has weaknesses (the cost of LNH compliance), there are two Better IRV methods, Smith and BTR, Smith has better LNH than BTR, but BTR is simpler and can be hand counted. It won't take much work to implement BTR-IRV in Vote::Count , but right now I have a lot of Work in Progress for STV methods, so may not get to it soon.