https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed-member_proportional_re...
Open lists are better, but I believe they still have the problem that they make it unclear where representatives' mandates come from, especially if a representative can resign and be automatically replaced by someone lower on the list without a by-election.
Other problems exist with list-based systems, such as treating independent candidates differently to candidates with established parties, and the possible use of "decoy lists"[1].
The best implementation I've seen of MMP, though, is that used in Baden-Württemberg, which avoids party lists by filling the proportional seats with the candidates who came closest to winning the elections in their local districts.[2]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_list
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Additional_member_system#Decoy...
Even more fundamentally, politics is a "team sport". The vetting of individuals when power boils down to alliances and other relations with the politicians is stupid waste of voter's time.
By voting for a small party you risk wasting your vote.
Edit: I may have confused RCV with STV. Regardless, it would be nice to know that if my first option didn't make it into Parliament that I could prefer a second party, and so on.
So ranked choice voting is a super-set with many flavours within.
MMP would probably work well in South Australia (where overall the electorate is fairly evenly split right-left, but many of the right-leaning voters are locked up in a few geographically large rural electorates and the left-leaning voters are distributed more evenly across more urban and suburban electorates).