@cfrank yes, well I guess the problem can exist at a lot of different levels.
Individuals can certainly vote strategically, and effectively so, under FPTP. Under approval, they almost have to. (unless they truly do think in simplistic black and white "like" and "dislike" terms)
I am also concerned about forming parties and eliminating candidates through primaries (etc), which FPTP strongly incentivizes. To be honest, that is the biggest problem because it causes so much polarization.
I am less clear on how organizations could game it through computation, although I don't doubt it is possible. They certainly do that with gerrymandering, with a lot of sophistication.
Right but if you are creating a new party it seems like you need to have a general idea of ideology (beyond the meta-issue if how you vote).
On the other hand, if the "ideology" of the party is to simply be centrist, I could get behind that. Methods that I consider good tend toward electing centrists. And in theory, a centrist candidate -- one that is essentially the first choice of the median voter -- might actually be able to win in a plurality election.
I could see a "Harmony Party", where the main goal of the party is to end the tribal politics, by nominating centrist candidates and advocating for better voting systems (that in turn tend to elect centrist candidates)
The CES forum appears to no longer be online. It appears to have been taken down fairly recently; probably this month even as I know I have checked in the past occasionally and found that it was still up, just inactive.
I would recommend that links to the old forum be updated to refer to the archive.