Ranked-choice voting is on the ballot in New York City
I absolutely support ranked-choice voting as an improvement to the current system.<p>BUT, the proposed system is specifically Instant Run-Off Voting (IRV), which does <i>not</i> make a centrist third-party candidate likely to win. Because it removes whoever gets the least first-place votes, the only improvement it gives is that a third-party candidate doesn't <i>spoil</i> an election, because your second-place vote will still count. 
(E.g. Nader wouldn't have taken votes from Gore, so Gore would have won instead of Bush.) But you're still stuck with one of the polarizing two-party candidates who will win.<p>Contrast this to the Borda Count [2], where points are assigned by rank. In this case, suppose about half of everyone votes first-place for an extreme liberal, and the other half vote first-place for an extreme conservative. But everyone votes second-place for a moderate centrist they can live with, and third-place for the opposite-party candidate they detest. With IRV, the centrist is ignored and one of the extremists will win. But with Borda, the centrist candidate will win.<p>So to really get away from the poisonous political polarization of our times, ranked choice is necessary, but it needs to be Borda or similar, <i>not</i> IRV. Still -- it's a start, and I'm grateful for that alone.<p>[1] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting</a><p>[2] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borda_count" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borda_count</a>