I see nothing wrong with a second choice winning, which is the most likely “perverse” outcome with those sort of voting systems. The backwards sort of outcome the arguments against usually posit are only very likely the smaller the voting pool. So, maybe it does have an effect on things like the MLB MVP award with few voters, but got a general election, you will not see the sort of stark imbalances that are claimed.

I used to be interested in this stuff as a way to break up the two party system, but as the chances it will happen are about equal to zero, I stopped thinking about it. I believe at that time, I favored Borda, though looking at the choices now, I am not sure the effective difference between the voting preference systems. In the end, I want people to be able to lend honest support to 3rd party candidates without feeling like they are going to lose because the more preferential of the major two parties didn’t get their support.

Btw, you can emulate the plurality vote in preference vote, but not vice versa. This suggests you are getting more information from the voter about their preference.

Wrt the economics of voting, even in plurality there are lesser prizes to be won. In many jurisdictions, if a 3rd party gets more than a certain percent of the vote, they are automatically put on the next ballot and in some cases are eligible for public financing. So, the next time, instead of just fighting for life, the 3rd party gets to spend more of their time on their issues.