comment: >
  
  RCV doesn't increase the odds of 3rd party winning. Having a viable 3rd party that people vote for OVER the two parties increases their chance. 
  Right now, the overwhelming majority of people would still vote Democrats or Republicans as their first choice which pretty much makes it's FPTP with extra steps. 
  Eliminating extreme candidates is definitely something RCV would do though.
context: Hopefully the dem control in Mi means they will implement it here >
  
  I'm in favor! >
  
  If in favor does not win, what is your second choice? >
  
  We already have open primaries (no need to register with a party) so either keep it that way or move to top 2/top 3 primary win system similar to California >
  
  I think they were making a ranked choice vote joke lol “If not, what’s your second favorite?” >
  
  🤷‍♂️ I can whiff on a joke with a real answer and look like a since. Won't be the first time >
  
  Imagine if Trump loses the GOP nomination, decides to run as an Independent, and then as a result of this so many red states decide to pass ranked choice voting. >
  
  If the GOP irreparably fractures and passes RCV federally in a panic because of Trump, then he’ll have unintentionally had one of the most positive impacts on American politics in history. >
  
  It really well could destroy the 2 party system that we have, because lets say the the old school and new school Republicans decide to split. If the Dems get supermajorities in congress then everyone should pay very close attention to the relationship between moderate and progressive Democrats. Either progressives get enough concessions or we then get a 4 party system, or maybe even beyond that depending on what happens with current minor parties. 
  And to think this could all happen because of fucking Trump of all people. Weird. >
  
  RCV won't destroy the 2 party system.  AUS uses it for their lower chamber and 10% of seats are won by 3rd parties.  10% for the US would be amazing.  AUS's lower chamber is still a 2 party system.  
  Their upper chamber pairs it with multimember districts with 20% of seats won by 3rd parties and it is a multiparty system.
  I do not see democrats getting a supermajority anymore than now.  It probably just leads to a few more moderates being elected.  Perhaps you'd get a few more progressive democrats winning by virtue of them getting to the general.
  I think it probably reverts to the informal 4 party system of previous decades at best where both parties have more members of the smaller wing.  Perhaps slightly more cross party voting. >
  
  The effect of 3rd parties still can't be underrated.  One thing that it (theoretically) forces is the major 2 parties being made to adopt policy changes in reaction to popularity rising for a specific 3rd party.  This means that there needs to be more common ground and collaboration in politics than the extremist views that the US has all too often. >
  
  Good! This is a big step to ending the two party stranglehold >
  
  I wish California would adopt Alaska's approach rather than it's 1st in the nation, so head well up its collective butt open primary top-2 system.
  If there were RCV for GENERAL elections, there'd be much less need for open primaries. RCV would introduce high odds of 3rd party and independent candidates WINNING general elections when Republicans and Democrats nominate extremists, so discounting or eliminating the rationale for open primaries favoring more moderate/centrist candidates. Let parties nominate whoever they want. Let general election voters decide among them.