I don't know whether you've spent much time with the site in your first link. Some of its claim strike me as especially dubious.
Originally Posted by Brian Pfleuger
The LEAST popular choice can WIN, and it's because of the "All and Nothing" nature of of system.
That isn't correct in a literal sense, since the person who gets fewer votes is categorically less popular than the one who gets more. The harm indicated in the link, that a plurality candidate would prevail, can be solved by a simple run-off in which voters make an actual choice rather than express contingent and hypothetical preferences.
"All or nothing" represents the choice made in an election so long as the winner gets "All" of the office for which he runs and the other get none of that office.
There are ways to re-jigger that in parliamentary systems, but for the reasons I noted above the result can be a sort of parliamentary trench warfare that can actually result in a narrower band of policy over time, with the range determined by the parliamentary coalition builders rather than those who elected them.
At a very practical level, we seem to have sufficient difficulty counting votes now in a simple majority, one man one vote model. I would have little hope that a system lots of voters would not understand at a conceptual level would result in the kind of clarity that would settle an election.