There's no way that it would be a good idea to choose a system (ranked choice) that has more complex rules while having known defects over an alternative, simpl

There's no way that it would be a good idea to choose a system (ranked choice) that has more complex rules while having known defects over an alternative, simpler system (approval voting) that apparently (based on Wikipedia's short discussion) lacks those defects and has an overall favorable performance when it comes to resistance against tactical voting. FWIW reading the decision rules for ranked choice puts me off. Purely in theory, one would probably prefer a system where all voters have to rank all the candidates; in practice, however, all of voting, validating, counting, applying the rules, and understanding the rules is significantly more difficult than approval voting where a candidate's points is simply the number of times a voter has marked their name on the ballot. You can (generally or for more important decisions) amend approval voting with a quorum, minimum percentage of approval, or minimal distance between first and second places without damaging the system with too much complexity, something I cannot even fathom how to achieve with ranked choice.