This is simply not correct. Elections are a form of statistical sampling, and with a good single-winner voting method, all voters of every stripe affect the centroid position, "tugging" it left, right, etc. Which you can see graphically depicted here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4FXLQoLDBA
> Again, theoretical claims against real world experience.
You're not citing any real world data that contradicts my argument.
> I've experienced polarization in AV to the point where center becomes a wasted vote, and people are incentivized to support one of the two dominant slates.
If you mean "alternative vote" (known to experts like myself as "Instant Runoff Voting"), note that I'm not advocating that. I'm advocating cardinal methods such as score voting and approval voting. Which tend to elect broadly appealing centrists.
Perhaps you were using one of these variants.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiwinner_approval_voting
You should probably specify to avoid confusion.
I don't know the metric you are using here, but it is surely purely academic, as the rest of your comment. The idea that a single candidate can better represent a smaller (and usually gerrymandered) district than a larger number of diverse candidates in a larger district flies in the face of everything we know about real democracies and party systems.
> Your scenario is unrealistic because real humans aren't that tightly clustered, so you get defectors.
Again, theoretical claims against real world experience. I've experienced polarization in AV to the point where center becomes a wasted vote, and people are incentivized to support one of the two dominant slates.