In my view, the priority of a democratic system is to ensure peaceful transitions of power by providing the perception of fairness. The perception of an election being fair is more important than an election being actually fair, although both at once is obviously desirable.

My concern with sophisticated voting schemes like Condorcet or RCV is that these systems may be too complicated for some unsophisticated voters to understand, and therefore risk the perception of unfairness. FPTP is less fair, but is easy to understand and is therefore easy to perceive as fair. FPTP is simple enough that any common fool can hold a mock election with his friends and trivially calculate the winner. Send that same man to the Condorcet method wikipedia page and I think his eyes will glaze over before he figures it out.

It may be the case that my concern is misplaced, so I support testing these voting methods in low-stake elections, such as this one in Alaska. But I recommend caution when applying these methods to high-stake elections. Peaceful transitions of power is more important than anything else, and anything that might risk that peace should be considered with caution.