I can't help but feel that the author's point is, "Wouldn't it be great if all states used RCV for primaries?", which while probably an improvement, I am not co

I can't help but feel that the author's point is, "Wouldn't it be great if all states used RCV for primaries?", which while probably an improvement, I am not convinced will change much. RCV + first past the post(FPTP) still produces two-party systems. They simply make coordination more difficult. In effect, they chose winners based on intra-party voter coordination ability ie: the ability for a party to effectively communicate a preferred ranking. That may or may not be more aligned with your desires than whatever metric we're functionally choosing winners by today. Still, RCV is an incremental, and I'd argue necessary, step toward multi-winner elections. To that effect, it's most likely an improvement.