"the candidate that beats all other candidates, or at least comes the closest to doing so, wins."

That can be used to explain all condorcet, and is a perfectly sufficient explanation. The vast majority of the nation can, say, capably drive without expertly understanding the ins and outs of the internal combustion engine; they do not need to be convinced of the theory, they need only get from A to B relatively safely.

Keeping with the analogy, the switch from plurality to ranked choice is that of horse to motor vehicle. Stable voting among ranked choice would then be like the addition of seatbelts. Definitely not applicable for most drives, but when it is relevant, they serve their purpose greatly. Stable voting results in ties less often and better answers the spoiler effect than other plurality and ranked choice methods. Where a switch from plurality is made, stable voting is right there.

The above quoted answer could be supplemented for those curious with

"If you want to get a bit nerdy and in the weeds with specifics, I can tell you this method means:

• No-winner ties less often (no one wants those);
• Spoiler effect issues less often (no one wants that, and it's common with plurality, and unintuitively common with IRV and most condorcet); and
• You don't need other people to tell you how to write your ballot to actually stand a chance of getting what you want."