That’s exactly how Chesa Boudin got elected to DA in SF - ranked choice.

It can be a bad option, but still the best of the alternatives.

You can look up who lost. Basically an “old timer” Democrat and a “hard(er) on crime upstart”.

Not sure we got the least worst.

I meant ranked choice can be the least worst way of conducting democratic elections.

Individual results will still rightly depend on voters. You can blunt the attraction of extremism, but hearts and minds need shifting before voters will take a fundamentally different approach.

The alternatives might have been even worse.

Boudin got the most votes in the first round. He would have won in first past the post too.

Ranked Choice Condorcet. Instant Runoff is a band aid for the most glaring failing of the plurality system, but it doesn't actually support moving away from the two party system. If anything it might just increase polarization as each major party would gain more strawman to bash.

The downside of high-plurality systems is the lack of voter knowledge, especially without the historical press function.

I'd support that if it were coupled with multiple-choice position forms that were required to be filled out by each candidate, covering core issues and options. That is, no free response, not-an-answer answers.

Given the type of candidates that tend to occupy the low plurality spots, I'd say that problem is there regardless.

But yes, I totally agree with your proposal. I can even see it helping with cutting through all the boilerplate verbiage candidates are having to use to pay respects to various things, and return some focus on actual policies.

Vote Smart tried to do something similar... but the effective end result was that few candidates wanted to go on the record. https://votesmart.org/for-candidates/

Which is a shame, because "knowing what you're voting for" seems like a critical component of democracy, and campaign ads are useless (and expensive).