Utah may be a special case rather than a case study. RCV is likely the best way to move away from the two-party system as it currently exists, and the more it is used the better people will understand and use it effectively.
I prefer a half-dozen parties with successive run-offs among the top 50% of the vote getters until there is a majority winner. Poorly informed voters should have to persevere to see their vote counted. It would force the hard choices to be made by those who care about the outcome.
Utah may be a special case rather than a case study. RCV is likely the best way to move away from the two-party system as it currently exists, and the more it is used the better people will understand and use it effectively.
I think both strategies are part of the answer. I do like RCV but there is going to be a lot of resistance from entrenched party interests.
I prefer a half-dozen parties with successive run-offs among the top 50% of the vote getters until there is a majority winner. Poorly informed voters should have to persevere to see their vote counted. It would force the hard choices to be made by those who care about the outcome.
Sounds expensive as hell and like a waste of resources.
Just use RCV, get it done with one time.
Your lips to state legislatures' ears.
That would be even less representative of the people's choice than the electoral college that leftists whine about.
How so? RCV is just instant run offs and inherently the people's choice requiring 50% + 1 vote.
Are you aware of how ranked choice voting works?
I know how it is supposed to work in Alaska. There is no guarantee of a majority first choice vote for the eventual winner.
I very seldom have a second or third preference except in primary elections. I believe most voters feel the same way.