They’re a protected class because they’re singled out for violence because of their class. And it’s a real world problem not a logic quiz. Misogyny and misandry are not equivalent in reality the way they are in the dictionary.

How exactly would it boost moderates except in that once the extremes are eliminated, your vote goes to the moderate that you want rather than it failing to oppose the people you don’t want.

I think you’ve pretty much got it. Extreme candidates tend to get eliminated because they tend to be the least popular with other parties voters. RCV punishes this unpopularity. Also candidates with similar goals can work together, this advantage is obviously is going to be unavailable for people running from the fringe.

Just imagine a New York primary where two weak moderates were running against a progressive. The two moderates are almost working together because it’s likely that whoever looses will gift their votes to the other. Ranked choice candidates have often “teamed up”, with ads asking their supporters to rank the other candidate 2nd.

I think lots of Democrats have been thinking about how the primary in New York could have been different and this is the answer to that question.

Ranked choice voting tends to boost moderate candidates. While this is valuable in a general election, during a party primary it protects the status quo.

It’s hard for me to look at this as anything other than Schumer and Jefferies putting obstacles in the way of Progressives.

They should have called it the Police Interceptor Ground.

edit: Or the Kosher cruiser because it doesn’t have any pork in it.