And here is the problem. The D's and R's don't want viable third parties, as it wrecks their hegemony. Their "condorcet" logic was only a public relations tool to go back the old ways that kept the hegemony in place. The two parties have the $$$$ to convince enough of their base to return to the old ways, forcing those citizens who want to show their first choice but have to vote strategically.

Using your example, I would say that Wright, Kiss, & Montrell had a reasonable and fairly equal amount of public support: the 3300, 2900, and 2500 is not big margin. It stands to reason that one of them should be elected. If the system elects someone else, then we can claim that the system is corrupt.

And if Burlington did go back to FPTP, there would be political forces to cause the Kiss & Montroll groups to find some unity to defeat Wright. If they can't, then 3300 votes beats 5400 votes. Them's the rules, which everyone should know beforehand.

But we should still accept that Wright had a a large measure of public support. He was not an unviable contender under either FPTP or RCV.

You mentioned other systems. My caution is that too much math, even if rightly applied, will cause too many citizens to discredit the system.

------------

I have recently written an article on RCV.

https://medium.com/@davevolek/ranked-choice-voting-c9e2f8840e11

I believe RCV is better than FPTP. I give my reasons in the article. But we need to go beyond these kinds of voting systems.