@sass I think tiebraking rules are complex and based on intuitions, values, assumptions, (mis)understandings, personal hisorical experiences (good and bad) and this fuzziness. This makes them them very vulnerable to say bad press or campaigning of other voteting-method activists. Therefore I would prefer to adjust your method: remove all tiebraking rules and let voters vote about it on the same ballot as the main vote:
Most elections have a unique winner but sometimes ties can occur what shoud happen according to you?
1 new election
2 random selection
3 highest average ranking
4 some other tiebreak variant a
5 some other tiebreak variant b

@rob if most voting-system innovators and activists would slowly gravitate to a single winner with good support using voting rounds then I agree with you, that would be much better.
However, I've been in this space for about 5 years and I see no signs of this at all In fact I see increasing fragmentation, polarisation, vote-splitting, many new variants that receive very little feedback and many leaving members in dissapointed way. In fact this was the reason I thought : why not push this fuzy complexity to the voters as a solition
I got one response from you, and you don't agree at all. Which is ok, but our differences illustrate my point.

@rob "voting for what to do when voting-methods disagree" seems a better description.
You may be right that it seems complicated but I expect after a few election-cycles voters would relax about it and probably gravitate towards 1 or 2 favorite methods. Also I expect political parties, commentators, mathmaticians, pychologists and social desicion-scientists would become better at it gradually. Wheter you and I like it or not, voting activists and theorists disagree a lot to the point of becoming irrelavant to change. You seem to miss the opportunity to at least agree when methods agree which is very often.

@jack-waugh yeah just simple choose one, most wins. I know in theory also ties could occur, you could argue for more expression or more complex, but I think this is fair and simple enough.

@sass I think tiebraking rules are complex and based on intuitions, values, assumptions, (mis)understandings, personal hisorical experiences (good and bad) and this fuzziness. This makes them them very vulnerable to say bad press or campaigning of other voteting-method activists. Therefore I would prefer to adjust your method: remove all tiebraking rules and let voters vote about it on the same ballot as the main vote:
Most elections have a unique winner but sometimes ties can occur what shoud happen according to you?
1 new election
2 random selection
3 highest average ranking
4 some other tiebreak variant a
5 some other tiebreak variant b

after a few adjustments I would change this to:

RWLCP: Random Winner from a List of Complementing Philosophies

A hybrid design for a single winner winner systems that combines some aspects of different voting-philosophies without predictable results for strategizing. So (succesfull) strategizing would not happen much. Also importantly the randomization would be perceived by normal citizens (as non voting-experts) to be a fairly honest choice between different kind of winners which all have a fair case to say they are legitimate and have a mandate. It could also lead to a bit more humbleness in the winner instead of arrogance because the winner would know he had an element of just luck on their side.

steps:

• start with a ballot that's suited to gather all needed info
• use independ and different methods to suggest a single winner:
  1. MARS voting (Mixed Absolute Relative Score)
  2. Reciprocal Score voting
  3. SODA voting (Simple Optionally Delegated Approval)
  4. Rangevoting
  5. STAR voting
• ends by picking the ultimate winner from the combined set of suggested winners (lets make that symbolical and festive: a little schoolchild chooses blind)
• the ultimate winner is announced

Unread topics (the second icon from the left in the top bar) never shows any (unread) posts.
Happens at least in: brave, iridium and firefox browsers

@robertpdx while not approving the 1st ranked might be preferred by probably a small group of voters, that was not my intended contribution ( I hadn't realised this). I just found the original ballot very complex visually and expected many voters would get confused or needing unnecessary amount of "cognitive load". I would expect many invalid ballots and uneasy feelings with voters about their choices and support for this method. So no change in method or tabulation intendend, just a different visual ballot-design that is less demanding on "cognitive load" for (below) average voters.

Just on ballot design: I think this would be easier for voters (less confusion and mistakes):

I would be interested in a single winner winner systems that has these basic requirements:

• start with a score ballot
• has two independ and different methods to suggest one or more winners
• if one method produces less suggested winners then the other then that method gets an extra round to add suggested winners until both methods have the same number of winners
• ends with random picking a ultimate winner from the combined set of suggested winners (lets make that symbolical and festive: a little schoolchild chooses blind)
• the winner is announced

what two methods would you propose and why?
as an example I'll give one:

1 https://electowiki.org/wiki/Smith_set and
2) https://rangevoting.org/ with the set of winners that have the maximum SUM of all scores.
This would combine some aspects of ranking and rating without predictable results for strategizing. So (succesfull) strategizing would not happen much. Also importantly the randomization would be perceived by normal citizens (as non voting-experts) to be a fairly honest choice between two different kind of winners which both have a fair case to say they are legitimate and have a mandate. It could also lead to a bit more humbleness in the winner instead of arrogance because the winner would know he had an element of just luck on their side.

on wording:

• add something like: this is intended as a single winner method
• "The candidate who wins in the most pairwise matches wins." better: "The candidate with the highest sum of points wins"