@Jack-Waugh said in Advocacy Tailored to Location:

for a given locality, if they have already taken on the expense of the logistics of IRV, then promote Score{1, .99, .01, 0} else promote Approval.

Without detracting from your goals here, I think it is worth considering a much smaller incremental change for places that already have IRV, which nonetheless solves significant problems and improves outcomes of elections.

The IRV halting condition is: “If one of the remaining candidates has more than half of the remaining votes, they win.”

That could be modified to: “If one of the remaining candidates would defeat all of the others head-to-head, they win.”

This small change turns IRV into not only a Condorcet method, but in fact a Smith method. The winner is guaranteed to be in the topologically highest strongly-connected-component of the pairwise results graph.

From an advocacy and education perspective, I suggest using the term “clear winner” in place of “Condorcet winner”. Then the new halting condition can be expressed succinctly as, “If one of the remaining candidates is a clear winner, they win.”

This phrasing also makes it easier to explain the problem being solved: the standard IRV method can fail to elect a clear winner. With this change to the halting condition, we can guarantee that won’t happen.