@weilawei@mastodon.online @Lightfighter this article is problematic. The main point is that RCV with no primary, plus the ballot system, will mean only the richest can participate.

In this large article though there's only one specific way I see that indicates this limits elections to the richest: the cost of gathering signatures. Then only one data point is given.

That data point is from an article where it is the only example, and it's for only one candidate in one small election. The article suggested she needed only 8000 signatures to get on her ballot... So it's a very different situation than the full state election situation.

But also - the example is from a Republican in a past election. The example is how the system works today. That means - this, "elections are for the richest" argument holds true without RCV too.

The difference then is that with the proposed system election is not as limited to the two parties.

The article briefly cites some other issues - voter confusion mainly. This is often trotted out as an issue, but folks have no problem rank ordering their favorite ice cream and other things. Voters in places with RCV doesn't seem to be completely confused - once they use it.