It’s a strategically bad choice, it’s not a hard concept.

Imagine a company that has a board, in a region with two races of people- purple and orange. When it comes time to choose a new member of the board, purple people evaluate the candidates and Orange people always choose orange people. All people being equal, purple people are gonna select a purple person half the time and an orange person half the time, depending on who is more qualified. Orange, meanwhile, will always vote orange.

Over time, the board will tip slightly more orange, since every new orange person contributes a vote that will always go orange. As soon as the majority becomes orange, even by a one-vote margin, that board will become mono-racial for good. The majority of the board will always just pick the orange candidate, no questions asked.

I get why you prefer a “choose the better option” approach. Really, I do. It is the theoretical way to get the best outcome. The unfortunate reality here is that only one race is trying to select for that best outcome and the others are just practicing nepotism. If you want to get the best outcome, you have to ensure your best-outcome race controls the decisions.