Congrats, we have a glorified FPTP and spoiler effect yet again!

Not quite. As you’ve just observed, this kind of strategic voting is risky, and self destructive. Which means that many would recognize this, and not use this voting strategy. Its a game of chicken, and lots of people prefer not to play such a game and instead support the safe bet, which means supporting those you genuinely support.

And as !ammonium@lemmy.world pointed out, it isn’t possible to have a perfect voting system.

Then there is the fact that there is more to this than just voting strategies. There are the other effects to keep in mind. For example approval is far simpler to explain than RCV, especially when you explain how the counting works.

Another example is that approval is purely an additive process for counting, RCV is not. That means auditing results is significantly easier and quicker under approval than RCV. That leads to higher voter confidence in results than RCV audits.

Now, other election systems could also have strategic voting, but its less likely with, for example, RCV, since you can rank candidates.

RCV still can experience the spoiler effect just as FPTP, because it is in effect FPTP taking place over some number of instant rounds.