Up to a degree.

You would need a group of alpha males to guarantee genetic diversity for future generations, or your little society will start having issues with inbreeding and maybe get killed by a rival tribe.

It's hard to say whether that would yield better results over monogamy after several generations. I wonder if this is an experiment evolution already tried over million of years or if it's a novel approach. Prehistoric men being of similar strength and not having tools would make it hard for an elite to get all women without rebellion. Nowadays, with a population which is mostly unarmed, it would be easier.

The thing that arguably makes it easiest now is welfare.

A woman can have children with as many different men as she likes (or your hypothetical alpha with no allegiance to her) and then use an army of state enforcers to secure a 20% income stream from each one after the relationship dissolves. If the enforcers can't get him to pay, no matter, IRS men with machine guns are sent to collect from everyone.

There's very little incentive compared to say 100 years ago to stay with your partner as a female, with divorce being initiated far more by women who can use this strategy.

Secure genetic material from only the top %, but pay for the uprising by taxing the entire population.

Are you referring to the entirely debunked theory that human social lives resemble those of wolves in captivity, which is now resonating in incel circles, and that even the original author has been trying to correct for decades?

Unless you meant alpha male as in furries, in which case furries fathering all the children is an interesting point of view.

26% children are already living in single parent households, so we're well on the way :)

Bad for genetic diversity.

Is it? There are plenty of examples in animal kingdom, which should prove, it is not unsurmountable problem.

Theoretically the goal is to pass on the best set of genes.