You think this is not already a response to the broader US climate?

Even before he won there were articles in the Atlantic suggesting that ranked choice voting was undemocratic and leading to the results not reflecting the people's votes (which is the exact opposite of the truth).

Can you elaborate on that?

In particular: how are they (and you) defining "truth" here? Are they claiming that people are using the ranking system incorrectly? Or that they're using it correctly-but-strategically, ending up with unintended consequences?

Arrow's Theorem says that there isn't any ground truth in a multiway election. That is, you can always define some not-unreasonable set of criteria to lead to any outcome you want.

I'm skeptical of ranked-choice voting (or any other voting scheme) to resolve the problem that people feel unheard -- at least in the general case. It sounds like you think the outcome in this case does reflect the sense of the people, and I'm interested in that.

True. There are a lot of people who will make it a priority that Zohran, the popular choice, fails. You know who I'm talking about.

I sincerely hope the pendulum doesn't swing back too soon, not in a political environment that lets Tennessee House Representative Andy Ogles feel perfectly comfortable making openly Islamophobic and racist tweets like [1]:

> Zohran "little muhammad" Mamdani is an antisemitic, socialist, communist who will destroy the great City of New York. He needs to be DEPORTED. Which is why I am calling for him to be subject to denaturalization proceedings.

[1] https://twitter.com/RepOgles/status/1938301392416084150