There’s this bizarre notion that Rank Choice Voting is an improvement but IMHO it’s a massive downgrade from First Past the Post. Voting system nerds love to dump on FPtP because it’s a right of passage for anyone studying social choice but in the real world, aka not in a computer with a crappy model, FPtP has real advantages over RCV.
Confidence in results: a large % of people don’t trust the government. They think elections are rigged, the simplicity of FPtP coupled with exit polling goes a long way to making people believe our democracy works which is what keeps us from collapsing into anarchy.
How do you trust RCV? The average voter can barely explain the process let alone understand it. Then how do you complete exit polls accurate enough to predict who won?
Summability: the United States is a federation built on the idea of spreading out power not concentrating it. When you say that votes have to be counted in a single location that erodes a lot of trust.
I trust my neighbors in my precinct that they are honest and trying their best to run a fair election, I don’t trust a remote faceless person off counting votes by a computer that could be rigged. Local counting makes our voting more secure and people more confident in it.
Speed of result: the longer an election takes the less confident people are in those results. First past the post is way faster than RCV.
First past the post has fewer spoiled ballots
First past the post has a long tradition of creating the greatest democracy in history. Rank Choice Voting is used by crap places like Australia.
Approval voting is only better than FPtP in 1 way. It frees us from the need for primaries.