>

Good! This is a big step to ending the two party stranglehold
Hopefully the dem control in Mi means they will implement it here >

I'm in favor! >

I wish California would adopt Alaska's approach rather than it's 1st in the nation, so head well up its collective butt open primary top-2 system.
If there were RCV for GENERAL elections, there'd be much less need for open primaries. RCV would introduce high odds of 3rd party and independent candidates WINNING general elections when Republicans and Democrats nominate extremists, so discounting or eliminating the rationale for open primaries favoring more moderate/centrist candidates. Let parties nominate whoever they want. Let general election voters decide among them. >

RCV doesn't increase the odds of 3rd party winning. Having a viable 3rd party that people vote for OVER the two parties increases their chance. 
Right now, the overwhelming majority of people would still vote Democrats or Republicans as their first choice which pretty much makes it's FPTP with extra steps. 
Eliminating extreme candidates is definitely something RCV would do though. >

Certainly if R and D candidates receive the top 2 vote counts in the 1st round, one or the other would win in the final RCV round. To that extent, bad odds for 3rd party/independent candidates.
OTOH, a reasonable Libertarian, Green or independent would have a much easier time attracting enough 1st preference votes to become one of the top 2 in the 1st round. Voting for such candidates wouldn't be a wasted vote as long as one can also vote R or D as their 2nd (or 3rd) choice. That would improve the odds of STRONG 3rd party/independent candidates winning general elections. >

Right, so in a FPTP system couldn't they do the same thing? Especially in a plurality system, there's a chance a reasonable third party could actually win with less votes than in a FPTP system. Seems RCV and meeting the minimum required votes actually makes it's harder, especially if the threshold is 51%. 
So basically it hinges on the voter and not the voting system. A viable third party could win ina FPTP system if people voted for them.
Plus, the idea of wasted vote seems more likely in RCV. If every R voter had R as their top votes, and D voter placed a third party higher than a D, they risk that candidate being eliminated.
I'll also add, I don't think wasted votes exist. Every vote someone places for the candidate they believe represents them best is a good candidate. >


A viable third party could win ina FPTP system if people voted for them.

Any candidate could win if they get a MAJORITY of the votes.
The question is what should happen when NO ONE wins a MAJORITY of the vote. Plurality wins is usually less odious with 45%-50% pluralities, but unacceptable for pluralities if under 40%.
Much more likely a Libertarian, Green or independent candidate could take 2nd place in the 1st round. With FPTP, they'd still lose, but with RCV they could win.

Every vote someone places for the candidate they believe represents them best is a good candidate.

Swell as long as there are clear majorities. What happens when candidates A, B and C each receive, say, 87,654, 87,653 and 87,652 votes, respectively? Candidate A is clearly the best? What if 90% of Candidate C's voters would prefer Candidate B as their 2nd choice? That should be ignored even though with RCV the 2nd round would give Candidate B over 63% of the vote?
To be as clear as possible, if ANY CANDIDATE wins 50% plus 1 in the 1st round/only vote, they should clearly win. FPTP or RCV becomes an issue when NO ONE WINS A MAJORITY. Should plurality win? Maybe for practicality, pluralities close to 50% should win, but pluralities when the 3RD and LAST place candidates together have more votes that the 1st or 2nd place candidates? If there are n candidates, should it really be sufficient to win 1/n + 1 of the total vote? >

Good! The more the better >

Good. Maybe we'll actually start to break the two party dynamic that has stymied change in this nation. >

Seems less likely to challenge the two party dynamic and more likely to just force candidates of both parties more to the center >

Under that interpretation, RCV would make things worse, so I sure hope not. >

Except there really isn't A single center. There are lots of dimensions that get oversimplified into R vs D, so there are many different kinds of centers (or edges) that can start to gain support and we might be able to better improve the amount of consensus we can arrive at.  At least in theory