I’m curious what the political parties think about this one since it’s a national strategy and the primary state level vote sets the stage for the general.

I voted for Liz just a few days before she dropped out and have zero hard feelings. Biden was the only guy with a shot at a national coalition, and I happily voted for him in November.

Don't fall for the ranked choice voting scam.

"One in four ballots didn’t count for an active candidate . . . ."

That link doesn't work.

I support RCV but personally, this reason for RCV in pres primaries doesn't really ring strongly for me. Both in '16 and '20 and probably most prez primaries, there are good and, IMO, obvious reasons to NOT vote way early. And the folks who "wasted" their primary vote, that's the reason for most of them, voting too early.
To me, the more telling argument for RCV in pres primaries is to ask:
Q: Think of the '16 GOP pres primary. If that had been decided by RCV, who would've won?
A: It's not clear who the winning candidate would've been, but it clearly would NOT have been Trump.
RCV hurts extremist candidates. Look at the last election in AK, where there IS statewide RCV already. Murkowski won. Pallin lost. If not for RCV, outcome might've been different.

Sorry, this would cost millions of dollars to implement and educate people on how to do it correctly and the benefit is marginal at best, especially for a primary. The state has much better things to spend money on than this.

I wouldn't flat-out oppose this idea, but the bigger problem here in WA is election officials constantly imploring people to "vote early." I'm not impugning their motives for doing so, but this ubiquitous official messaging can and does affect election outcomes. In addition to distorting the presidential primary by encouraging people to vote for candidates who may not still be in the running on election day, it also can be detrimental to ballot measure campaigns whose electoral strategy depends more on voter education than on base turnout. These tend to be disproportionately progressive.

Before you cast a ballot any earlier than election day, always ask yourself if you are 100% sure you wouldn't regret it if your chosen candidate subsequently drops out or some unsavory part of their past is unearthed that makes you reconsider your support. Personally I choose not to risk it.

This is a well argued case for passage of the Presidential Primaries bill (HR1592). But as noted time is running out as it must get out of committee by this Friday, and chances are good that it will not. The Legislature has much to do, and RCV is probably not at the top of priority lists for most legislators. RCV is important but is it as important as some other critical issues (housing, child-care, transportation, police tactics, gun control, budget, etc.)?

Don't get me wrong - I yield to no one in my support of RCV. But perhaps there is an argument that passing HR1592 might be better done in the next session - probably (I may be wrong here) still in time to be used in the 2024 Presidential Primaries. By then the nature of the primaries will be clearer, and might look quite different than those of 2020. A main argument for passage of HR1592 is the 2020 Democratic Primary with many candidates, most of whom dropped out wasting more than a few votes that could have remained with RCV. The situation may well be quite different in 2024, making RCV in the 2024 Presidential Primaries less critical.

Perhaps it's best for the RCV advocates to relax a bit locally and maximize future activist effort when RCV is on people's minds - such as an imminent election. In the meantime we can rejoice in the increasing momentum RCV has shown recently - undoubtedly RCV will eventually be standard procedure.

I've been told that however the Presidential Primaries are run - Plurality, RCV, whatever - the results will be handed to the respective parties and they can do with those results whatever they wish. So how the Presidential Primaries are run may not be quite as critical or binding as we may suppose.