Thanks for that, a very clever example - I agree in this circumstance STV would give B rather than C although, just to be difficult I would point out that C was not the first choice of 58 out of 80 voters. The example is a little odd in that all the first choice voters for each of the candidates have an identical second choice, which skews things a bit. I understand that the second choice of the last remaining candidates is not taken into consideration, but I think it is better that way - a matter of choice/preference.
What I don't agree is that STY encourages tactical voting, quite the opposite as your second (and subsequent) choices are only brought into play if your prior choice (first choice in the example) has been eliminated. In Condorcet, if you have a strong preference for your first choice or you are concerned that your second choice will overtake your first choice your wishes are better served by not giving a second choice. So in the example if A supporters want the optimum chance of getting A they should not give a second choice, in the hope that not all the second choices will fall to 'non A'. In the example given this would result in B having the same number of first plus second choices as C and assuming your tie break system prioritised first choices over second B would be chosen.
Just saying :-))
I am not trying to change anything but am replying to a request for comments. I suspect the ETC will be resistant to change, on the very good basis of 'if it ain't broke don't fix it'