This is amazing! Rob was trying to criticize STAR Voting here, but his argument applies to IRV, not STAR Voting.
Absolutely true! Congratulations—you just proved why IRV is vulnerable to tactics. If I don’t think my favorite can win in the second round, it’s strategically unwise to support her. And because of vote splitting with Plurality based methods (like IRV), it’s entirely possible for a weak candidate to make it to the next round and then essentially become a spoiler.
But STAR Voting is different, because the second round survivors are based on SCORES, and thus generally free from vote splitting. Any candidate who can make it to the runoff with STAR Voting is, by definition, a contender with a GOOD CHANCE OF WINNING. And therefore such “turkey raising” is unwise in STAR.
It cannot be stressed enough how ironic it is that you just made an argument against STAR that applies to IRV, not STAR. Somehow you think this argument is ludicrous with IRV, because voters couldn’t possibly have enough foreknowledge of other voters’ plans, and thus it’s likely to “backfire”. You have used that exact argument for over a decade that I’ve known you. And YET, here you are wielding it in exact opposition to what logic would support. This is evidence that you are not trying to seek truth, but instead are starting with a conclusion and trying to bend the facts to fit it.