Proportional voting also has higher turnout rates and especially the list-based system seems to have a higher number of women in politics.
FPTP countries tend to have the highest inequality, too, likely because there is that lack of competition, which tends to allow powerful people to have a bigger influence on the two parties over time.
Coalition of parties is better than the alternative of one party dominating the whole government, because then parties are forced to work with each other and compromise on their most extreme views. That's usually a good thing. Plus, you don't get totally opposite platforms every 4 years. Like say if Democrats were to dominate once, raise taxes for everyone to 40%. Then Republicans came. Lowered them to 10%. Then Dems came again, raised them to 30%, and so on.
RCV is a little harder to understand. But so is the caucus system, and the electoral college system, and other quirks the current American political system has.
RCV has some real advantages, like optimizing for positivism in elections rather than negativity (because you may need your opponent's voters). That's usually a good thing.
I don't believe people have a hard time choosing parties. If anything, what happens in most countries, even PR countries, is that people say that they don't have a good option.
Ultimately, FPTP is also undemocratic, because it allows parties to dominate the government when they have less than 50%, sometimes even less than 40% of the voters' support (at it has happened in Canada, and sometimes in mid-terms in the US). I don't know why anyone would support FPTP when that is the case. Why would a party dominate the government with less than 40% support in election day?