It seems a weird argument to make. I don't think that ranked-choice voting will actually help all that much, but it's absurd to say that it's "not democracy".

It seems a weird argument to make. I don't think that ranked-choice voting will actually help all that much, but it's absurd to say that it's "not democracy". Elections are always ambiguous when there are more than two candidates. Ken Arrow won a Nobel Prize for proving it, but it's pretty intuitive even without the proof. A majority is clear, but with more than two candidates you're not guaranteed a majority. Strategic voting will cause you to vote for somebody other than your favorite. You can handle that a lot of different ways: runoffs, instant-runoffs, alternative votes, approval voting, etc. But there's no such thing as a democratic system that always gives you a binary choice between exactly two candidates -- unless somebody is dictatorially reducing the field to two. Primary elections are inherently multi-way, and ranked choice is as good a way to deal with that as any. It's bizarre to call that non-democratic. That sounds as if they're wishing away the problems facing any democratic choice.