Arguably limits viable parties to One. Quite a few states are functionally single party oligarchies, thanks to winner-take-all election results. States that split 55/45 by party affiliation will routinely have legislatures that are closer to 70/30 by representative. And control of statewide office typically means a single party veto even when the legislature is split.

How can you be so upset about a recurring problem and then do nothing to resolve it?

It's a big, systemic problem that requires a large coordinated professionalized opposition to change. And that means organized manpower, large amounts of money/resources, and an ideologically committed media apparatus to help coordinate the reform effort.

When we've got none of the above? And, even worse, an incumbent party system dedicated to resisting any kind of reform (often violently), building that kind of organization is incredibly difficult.

We should have a free market of ideas competing with each other.

I can't imagine how a more fractured and adversarial constellation of movements would benefit us.

We need a coalition that's collaborative, not a marketplace of minor opposition parties that's fighting for vote share.

The whole appeal of Ranked Choice is that candidates aren't competing with one another in a market for vote-share. They can collaborate - as Mamdani and Lander did - towards a commonly shared policy goal.