The third parties don't need to be "viable" to have an impact in ranked choice voting, that's kind of the point of it. Just talking about a viable third party is a sign that you're thinking in first-past-the-post, winner-takes-all terms.

You can have the big "we like red things" and the tiny "we like red apples from new zealand" party, and keep the "We like Blue things and hate everything from new Zealand" party out of office because of how voters rank them.

Which then, in strategy meetings, leads to the divisive "We hate everything from New Zealand" policy getting ditched by the "We like blue things" party, because it only appealed to a small minority, who get to vote for a newly created extremist "We really hate NZ" party that reflects their views better anyway.

I still don't get why people like ranked choice so much. Anybody that seriously investigates voting methods can see that it is a highly flawed solution. If we are going to the trouble of changing that, why not reach for the best solutions.

Ranked choice leads to very non-intuitive outcomes (including spoiler effects) and already has done so in a actual elections. Its complex to fill out and it forces choice on people that don't want to choice.

https://www.equal.vote/science

Because its so much better than what we have, people who care about the real life outcome, not the academic arguments, realise that any of the sensible choices would be better and so other factors, like name recognition or existing usage, dominate over any minor further improvements.

Its not an academic argument. Its a why don't we do something that is simpler and easier to understand and has better outcomes.

He you know how you evaluate restaurants, books, and most other things in live? You give things a score. That's how should evaluate politicians as well.

And guess what, the outcomes will be mostly intuitive rather then confusing as often happens with ranked choice.