As Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) is challenged as a viable voting system, this does not mean there is a lack of need for electoral reform. If claims of voting integrity can be voiced, and proven, then they should be addressed. Minnesota has a solid electoral system and our nation-leading high voter turnout is a testament to the existing process and structure.
Criticism of voter turnout and the third-party spoiler effect was largely the rationale for RCV. This means the removal of those factors should be the focus. The wholesale change of a single transferable vote seems to be a throw-the-baby-out-with-the-bathwater approach rather than getting at the root of the problem.
In California, they use a system called a “Jungle Primary” where all candidates are listed on the ballot and only two candidates emerge for the General Election. This means there could be two Democrats, two Republicans, or candidates of two different parties, depending on the highest vote totals. In Minnesota, because we have a robust party endorsement system, only the major political parties, should allow their party label to appear on the ballot, and lacking such no further information should appear.
This could have the desired effect of moderating the candidates who face an intra-party contest and allow the electorate to pick the more thoughtful and less extreme candidate.