I wouldn't have an issue if the election used ranked choice voting.
Otherwise, however, it could be a disaster, with the winning candidate only having a tiny percentage of the vote.
Why would one ever want ranked-choice voting? It isn't even deranged in a way that advantages some type of candidate, it's just mathematically deranged.
Because even you would agree that some people are better leaders than others.
People aren’t good at something (e.g. leading a country in the modern and complex time) juts because you wish it so.
Unfortunately this devolves into geeking out over voting systems. Despite having the most popular support, Instant Runoff Voting is also a hot mess with its surprising nonintuitive outcomes. The way I see it, RCV/Condorcet is the way to go, regardless of the criticism that it allows for ties - it's criteria is straightforward and what most people would consider fair. Solve the ties with a tiebreaker IRV round (same input data type) or just a second election since they're going to be really rare with any significant population (how many times do we have ties with plurality?)