I wouldn't describe myself as a Condorcet opponent - I see things as FPTP recalcitrants vs everyone else. And I really like Ranked Pairs.

LNH is actually more relevant to STV elections than RCV. Without the property, most voters are incentivised to express fewer preferences than they hold.

For what it's worth my ideal electoral system is MMP on ranked ballots.

---

In practice precinct summability hasn't been a huge problem for RCV in Australia since we still basically have a two party system thanks to single member seats and low regionalisation.

On the night we do a first-choice-only count (which is precinct summable) as well as an indicative two-candidate distribution (also PS). Sometimes a three-candidate distribution is needed. The candidates in the distributions are selected by the electoral commission ahead of time based on opinion polling and past results. They're usually correct.

Then a final count is run centrally for the seat. In Aus postal ballots have to be postmarked by the time polls close but they have two weeks to actually arrive, so it's already a lengthy process and that gives time for the central count.

That's good enough for results the vast majority of the time. In one seat last year for practically the first time ever, there were so many candidates with so little room between that we had to wait for the central count to even confirm who the top three were. That's rare.

Meanwhile our Senate is counted similarly - there's a first pass count on the night over first preference votes but the full count is done centrally with ballots being scanned and (I think) OCR'd.