>IRV and other non-Condorcet ranked methods are just plain worse than Condorcet. These results are well-known and well-cited, and show there's no reason anyone should ever use RCV as anything but a Condorcet tiebreaker.1. I am a Condorcetist regarding single-winner Ranked-Choice elections.  That is because with a single winner, there is no proportionality to be had.  The only way to value our votes equally is to respect Majority Rule and that leads directly to Condorcet.2. But for multi-winner, then proportionality *is* a thing and I don't think there is a particularly good Condorcet-baded multi-winner method.  I had considered using repeated Condorcet RCV for each seat until all seats are filled, but that's really majoritarian, not about proportional representation.3. Also, please don't concede the label "RCV" to FairVote.  They appropriated that label circa 2012 when "IRV" was losing cachet after several repeals.  Condorcet RCV is also Ranked-Choice Voting.  It's not just IR V even though FairVote would have you believe that.