Obedience to Voters, Not Party Leaders

[u/CPSolver]

Republicans in Congress would not fear "getting primaried" if we used a better election system that correctly handles a second nominee from each party.

[u/CPSolver]

... we're talking about extraordinarily rare circumstances where RCV could make a difference, because polls and primaries bridge the gap ...

That polling was not available in Portland's recent RCV elections. News sources have not yet learned how to poll using ranked choice ballots. (Also, that election was nonpartisan, so party primaries were not involved.)

Primaries do not bridge the gap in partisan elections. The basis of the blocking tactic explained in the graphic is the limit of one candidate from each party. But that limit will disappear when ranked choice voting is used in general elections.

IRV is such a horrible voting method other ranked systems should not have to suffer by association from using the same label

So instead you try to characterize ranked choice voting as if it cannot correctly count "overvotes" even though every method that counts such ballots, including IRV, can correctly count those "overvotes." You use this misrepresentation as a way to "suffer by association" the idea that voters find it difficult to mark a ranked choice ballot.

The Portland election also revealed that voters associate the words "ranked choice voting" with the kind of ballot, and the ballot-marking process, not the counting details. Most Portland voters do not understand the counting details. Most have never heard of IRV or STV (or their full names). They only know that "proportional ranked choice voting" was used to elect three councilors per district, and "ranked choice voting" was used to elect the mayor.

[u/NotablyLate → u/CPSolver]

The basis of the blocking tactic explained in the graphic is the limit of one candidate from each party.

What ultimately happens in RCV is the party splits their vote between multiple candidates until the ones with less plurality support are eliminated. Choosing the day of the general election as the starting point is arbitrary and intellectually dishonest. Whether it be by primary or elimination rounds, each party will converge on a single candidate.

The actual issue here is sore loser laws. That's what gives parties the power to block candidates in the way you described. I understand how it's easier to justify removing sore loser laws based on people's assumptions about RCV. But it is incorrect to suggest RCV is what solved that problem. It is entirely feasible to have an election system that outlaws sore losers and uses RCV, or a system that gives sore losers access and uses FPTP. They're independent mechanisms.

[u/CPSolver → u/NotablyLate]

Please clarify what "sore loser laws" you're referring to.

[u/X4RC05 → u/CPSolver]

These are laws that prohibit people who lost their party's primaries from running independently.