But if you have a 2-stage election, where the first stage is not siloed by private club affiliation, you could have two Republicans and a Democrat advance to th

But if you have a 2-stage election, where the first stage is not siloed by private club affiliation, you could have two Republicans and a Democrat advance to the final round. Or perhaps three Democrats. And they are all more appealling to the general population than what we get now. I would prefer a candidate who was the first choice of 30% of Party A voters and the second choice of 40% of Party B voters over a candidate who was the first choice of 65% of Party A voters and the second choice of 2% of Party B voters. Admittedly, RCV doesn't guarantee this, but it seems much more promising. If you can get winners that 70% of voters can live with, that seems better than the current situation. And it would change strategies dramatically. I would expect fewer appeals to mobilize extremist bases. I think it would also make voting more granular. People would focus on individual issues more. Their first choice might look the same as today, but for their second choice should they choose the guns-rights abortionst or the gun-control pro-lifer? That second choice now impacts the election result in a meaningful way.