California's top-two primary isn't broken. It just needs ranked choice voting to work better. - FairVote

Ranked choice voting is just a new coat of paint on a house with a collapsed foundation.

Adding complex math to the ballot will not cure the systemic rot of a two-party duopoly that thrives on manufactured scarcity. These reforms ignore that both legacy parties have already captured the regulatory apparatus to stifle genuine competition. You are rearranging the deck chairs on a sinking ship while the donor class keeps the lifeboats for themselves.

The problem isn't how we count the votes but that neither candidate deserves your trust.

Rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic is still not steering away from the iceberg.

FairVote's ranked choice proposal treats the symptom while the disease runs the donor class. California's top-two primary already funnels power toward centrists who won't threaten capital, and RCV layered on top just makes that filter feel more democratic. The article celebrates procedural elegance without asking who benefits when progressive challengers are mathematically squeezed out before November. Electoral mechanics don't redistribute wealth or break corporate capture of party infrastructure.

Better ballots without power redistribution is just a prettier cage for working people.

Bolting ranked choice onto top-two is like adding gears to a cracked axle.

FairVote says California’s top-two primary is fine and only needs ranked choice voting to work better. Wrong: top-two already weakens party gatekeeping, thins out governing coalitions, and rewards candidate branding over durable programs. Ranked choice would pile procedural cleverness onto a system that already blurs accountability and confuses mandates. Elections need legitimacy rooted in clear choices, not endless redesign by electoral hobbyists.

When institutions stop clarifying consent, they stop deserving trust.