comment: >
  
  OP should maybe define what they mean by 'good strategy'. RCV, compared to FPTP, is always going to lead to a more accurate expression of the will of the electorate, better mandates for the winner, and less anger on the part of the losers. So, I'd say yes, for anyone whose goals are nominally meant to be compatible with democracy, it would be good to enact RCV.
context: Once again, GOP strategy hinges on the growing question of what the GOP actually wants to be - the moderate wing versus the radical wing. RCV is good for the moderate faction and limits the radicals, but whether that's good strategy for the party overall is a different question. 
  Honestly, in my view, it's too early to call. Trump has won one election and lost another, whether his brand of nationalism is sustainable long-term is still up in the air. Maybe the right-leaning portion of the electorate is done with Bush-like moderation and will commit to a hardline stance through successors like DeSantis, maybe Trumpism will prove to be a flash in the pan. We just don't know, and we won't for a few more election cycles where the new rightist philosophy can have its' mettle better tested.
  2024 is going to decide the GOP's fate for the next decade at least - not really in actually challenging Biden, but in choosing their challenger. These will be the most important GOP primaries since Reagan. >
  
  I think the fight for the Majority Speaker already answered that question: the lunatics have taken over the asylum. >
  
  It's worth noting that of 222 Republican representatives, only 20 were the lunatics (or at least so lunatic that they opposed McCarthy) - if you could draw a 1:1 between House makeup and electoral makeup (you can't), that would mean over 90% of Republicans aren't lunatics. 
  Of course, even "consensus Republican" Kevin McCarthy is not a moderate - he is staunchly opposed to LGBT rights, abortion access, climate legislation, and even kind of sort of supported January 6 (after he got in trouble for not supporting it.) He's just not all-in on the Trump Train. >
  
  A majority of the House Republican caucus voted to reject the 2020 election results. Almost all of them were re-elected. The 20 or so folks fighting against McCarthy are not the only lunatics in the party. They're just one flavor of lunatic. >
  
  
  They're just one flavor of lunatic.
  
  The honest ones who say what they mean.  All republicans were going to send us into a debt ceiling crisis.  These are the ones who bothered to come up with a plan before hand.  Even if that plan is patently evil. >
  
  Going on with Arizona, several things could've happened if RCV were around there in the midterms. For senator, they could've had Jim Lamon instead of Blake Masters, Karrin Taylor-Robson for governor and not Kari Lake, Beau Lane instead of Mark Finchem for secretary of state, and Andrew Gould for attorney general and not Abraham Hamadeh. >
  
  Very interesting question. I’d be interested in hearing what moderate conservatives like Tom Nichols, David Frum, and Bill Kristol think about RCV. Or Kinzinger. [EDIT: errant comma] >
  
  Good God, you just rattled off the who is who of "True Conservative" grifters >
  
  If you say so. I am a lifelong liberal and climate activist, and I have found surprising comfort in reading conservative perspectives that recognize the perversion of Trumpism. I disagree with them on most practical matters of policy, but certainly find them interesting and enjoyable reading, and thoughtful about policies like ranked choice voting. I’d be interested in their perspectives, whether I end up agreeing or disagreeing with them. Dismissing them out of hand with pejoratives is not ultimately very satisfying to me.