The other side frames confusion and odd outcomes as fatal flaws, but that's like rejecting a smartphone because the menu takes a day to learn. Ranked-choice's real fix is the spoiler problem: you can rank your favorite first without accidentally electing your least favorite, like picking a backup quarterback instead of punting. That means more candidates, more competition, and winners who actually earn majority support through transfers, not just plurality luck. Sure, it's not a magic reset button for every political ill, but it patches a concrete bug in the system. Calling it broken because it's imperfect misses the point.

Here's a fact that flips the script: Australia has used ranked-choice voting for over a hundred years, and voters there manage just fine. My opponent worries that older or unprepared voters can't handle ranking candidates, but the ballot is basically just numbering a list, like picking your top three movies instead of one. Sure, there's a learning curve, and that's fair. But the payoff is real: you can vote your conscience first without handing the election to your worst option. That spoiler fix is the concrete bug this patches. Confusion is a design and education problem, not a reason to keep a system where a plurality can win with 35 percent.