and creates legitimacy and increases exposure for third parties and independents. Not ideal for either main party.

than anyone else, which is why Republicans wanted this system in California. In red states they'd fight it tooth and nail.

Its obvious democratic benefits are desirable, but in this dangerous era the other edge of this sword increases the threat of elective sabotage by opponents and of destructive infiltration and takeovers by extremists from the left and right, by kleptocrats, and by hostile foreign states.

All our systems need to serve the will and sovereignty of the people as best possible. Notably, the hostiles who hoped ranked choice would would sabotage the will of Democratic voters in the primaries were disappointed.

There's actually a mathematical proof that no perfect voting system exists: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theorem

In the case of Maine's system, one flaw is that it's possible for the ideal compromise candidate to be rejected. One candidate can be everyone's number two choice, but no one's number one choice. This candidate would get kicked out on the first round and the winner would be someone most people see as an inferior choice.

That said, I like it because it lets people vote naturally. You can vote for your ideal candidate first without worrying about "throwing away your vote" on an unelectable candidate.

Nothing is for free. People have to run these systems. The extra confusion opens up opportunities for hackers, etc.

Voting needs to be as simple as possible.

I don’t believe a proposal of that nature would pass judicial muster.